Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe

[GideonF]

Question for those taking Earl/TD's side.

What if the scenario were exactly the same, but they were playing 8 ball?

Earl calls the 2, but makes the 10.

Keep in mind the rules for call shot that have been posted are applicable to ALL call shot games.

If the table is open, same result - Earl keeps shooting and is stripes.

If Earl is stripes, same result.

If Earl is solids, calls the 2 but in fact hits and makes the 10, it's a foul. Not because he called the wrong ball but because he didn't make a legal hit on a solid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dr_CollieCue]

Does anyone know what particular rules were designated to apply to the tournament? I looked at the worldstraightpool website and didn't see anything on point. Did I overlook something or was it specified elsewhere or at the tournament?

The official BCA rules (Pool Billiards - The Rules of Play (Effective 1/1/08)) provide, in paragraph 1.6: "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. ... 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." http://bca-pool.com/?page=54 (General Rules PDF download). The 14.1 Continuous Pool Rules simply reference this rule in paragraph 4.5.

If these rules apply to the instant tournament, they do not require calling an obvious shot and the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made in the case of a called shot. Furthermore, if either Jayson or the referee were unsure of what Earl intended, they appear to be obligated to seek clarification before the shot.

I don't see how you can interpret this other than the tournament director correctly ruled in Earl's favor. He made an obvious shot that didn't need to be called. However, if you take the position that Earl (unnecessarily) called a shot by only calling (according to the available accounts) the ball but not the pocket, that could not have been clear to either Jason Shaw or the referee. Neither sought clarification during the time allotted (before Earl played the shot).

 

[HoustonInt]

The 'intended shot' is the one that is verbally stated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Vohladio]

Why consider something that isn't even close to this situation? It's tough enough with the current reality.

It is a thought experiment to help decide if what happened was a fair ruling.

In a game of call-shot you should only be able to continue shooting if you make the intended ball. If you think that he could have gotten away with making the 2 ball in this scenerio, then he would have been able to "legally" pot two different balls. That shouldn't happen when playing a game of call-shot.

If it was obvious that he was going for the 10 ball, then he shouldn't have been allowed to shoot the 2. But if he had made the 2, he probably would have had it ruled in his favor. Rules are supposed to prevent this from happening. So if you verbally call a ball you better shoot that ball.

 

[JAM]

Score, please?

 

[bicki]

Ok, so let me ask you this. If he misses the 10 in the corner and by a fluke caroms the two in, I guarantee you he is awarded it because he called the 2. And I'll bet Earl would at that point, argue he called the 2. Do you take that away because "it was obvious he was shooting the 10"? Nope. The 2 would have been potted, and he would have called it

Nope, since Earl had NOT called a pocket for the 2 and no pocket was obvious. So the 2 goes to the spot and change of inning (no foul as some wrongly said).

NYC Dude repeatedly said that the 10 was not obvious coz he was striking in the direction of the 2. That is basically true, but as there was no obvious pocket for the 2, he only could have meant the 10. which went straight in. Noone argues that Earl wanted to play the 10. he misspoke and Jayson tried to capitalize on a technicality. Which - at least in my eyes - is a nit move. Like Boyes did on Daulton recently when the cue ball touched Shannon's stick right at the end after he had potted the 9 and put his cue on the table. Everyone saw that the cue would never ever go to pocket...

 

[thenuke]

Agree Agre Agreee

I can't remember ever seeing anyone jump so fast out of his chair the way Shaw did unless it was league play ,, I certainly would not expect it at a professional level especially in a 14.1 event where they pride themselves in looking professional

1

Clear intent was to pocket 10 ball. What if it had been Earl who had jumped up and scattered balls, we would never hear the end of it. Shaw did not act like a good sport at all.

And, FYI, Earl plays pool for a living, also. Not just Jayson.

Earl Strickland is a great talent and has been very good for pool over the years. He makes it INTERESTING !!

 

[one stroke]

Clear intent was to pocket 10 ball. What if it had been Earl who had jumped up and scattered balls, we would never hear the end of it. Shaw did not act like a good sport at all.

And, FYI, Earl plays pool for a living, also. Not just Jayson.

Earl Strickland is a great talent and has been very good for pool over the years. He makes it INTERESTING !!

Well if you your waiting for Shaw to be a sportsman you got a long wait , to be fair Earl won't win in awards in the area either ,

In a court of law intent of the law is used all the time , in this case the rule is made so it's clear what the intended ball is and what pocket it is supposed to go in in case it's not clear , in this case it certianly was clear
amendments as we saw posted are made to assure intent of the rule is upheld , as it was and should be
No one should want a match lost or won on a mere technicality .. He shot and made the ball that was intended to go in that pocket ,

1

1

 

[Johnnyt]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. This is just a run of the mill 14.1 tournament with a few top players and a bunch of 2 and outs...no matter how you try to spin it. World my ass. Johnnyt

 

[one stroke]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. This is just a run of the mill 14.1 tournament with a few top players and a bunch of 2 and outs...no matter how you try to spin it. World my ass. Johnnyt

Ok so maybe you can point us to a real 14.1 event

1

 

[JoeyA]

I started this thread because I wanted to see some serious discussion about this situation as it relates to many others in pool.

Besides the officiating problem, there are other important things to discuss.

One of them is: Do we want to be a part of game that is a "Gentleman's Game" or do we want to hold ALL players to the same precise rule.

I don't think anyone can disagree with the following points:
1. Earl was indeed shooting the 10 ball.
2. Earl called "2 Ball" but was definitely shooting the 10 ball.

In "call shot games" such as straight pool is it necessary to call obvious shots?

I'm not making excuses for Earl, but at :27 seconds of a video of the shot, that I saw on Facebook, Earl had gotten down on the 10 ball shot and a person sitting next to Jayson Shaw, (precisely in line of Earl's vision)craned his neck and bent his body, just as Earl was getting ready to shoot the 10 ball. Why he did that I will probably never know. Maybe it was the referee for all I know. I don't know who that was but I have seen distractions such as this create a brain cramp for players. Many years ago when I was much younger, I was running out an EASY rack of 9 ball for the tournament victory and as I got down on the shot, a person on an adjacent table, precisely in my view was throwing the cue ball into the rail and making it hop up in the air, catching it and doing it over and over again and again. I walked around the table, over to the person because they weren't facing me and asked them to stop and they did. I could only shake my head because the person knew better but just wasn't paying attention to the final match of the event. I turned around to the table, taking my time, even checking the path of the object ball to the pocket and saw what I thought was the lowest numbered ball on the table and pocketed that ball. It turned out to not be the ball that I was originally aiming at. lol The other player didn't say anything to me although he could have and he knew I was distracted but chose to remain quiet until I shot the wrong ball. I got what I expected and lost the tournament due to a distraction that shouldn't have happened.

To Earl's credit he got up off the 10 ball shot, when the guy in the white shirt craned his neck. Earl then went around trying to restart his engine and called the 10 ball the 2 ball.

Do we want to enforce rules PRECISELY as they are written for EVERY player, even when we know PRECISELY what the player was doing?

Is winning on a technicality what we want in pool?

Is winning by enforcing the letter of the rules the best way for pool to evolve?

Is pool doomed because MOST PLAYERS do what is best for themselves and not what is best for the game?

I know these are a lot of questions but all of us (including the fans, the 2 players, the referee, the tournament director and the promoter) need to be asking ourselves what we want from the game.

JoeyA

 

[one stroke]

I started this thread because I wanted to see some serious discussion about this situation as it relates to many others in pool.

Besides the officiating problem, there are other important things to discuss.

One of them is: Do we want to be a part of game that is a "Gentleman's Game" or do we want to hold ALL players to the same precise rule.

I don't think anyone can disagree with the following points:
1. Earl was indeed shooting the 10 ball.
2. Earl called "2 Ball" but was definitely shooting the 10 ball.

In "call shot games" such as straight pool is it necessary to call obvious shots?

I'm not making excuses for Earl, but at :27 seconds of a video of the shot, that I saw on Facebook, Earl had gotten down on the 10 ball shot and a person sitting next to Jayson Shaw, (precisely in line of Earl's vision)craned his neck and bent his body, just as Earl was getting ready to shoot the 10 ball. Why he did that I will probably never know. Maybe it was the referee for all I know. I don't know who that was but I have seen distractions such as this create a brain cramp for players. Many years ago when I was much younger, I was running out an EASY rack of 9 ball for the tournament victory and as I got down on the shot, a person on an adjacent table, precisely in my view was throwing the cue ball into the rail and making it hop up in the air, catching it and doing it over and over again and again. I walked around the table, over to the person because they weren't facing me and asked them to stop and they did. I could only shake my head because the person knew better but just wasn't paying attention to the final match of the event. I turned around to the table, taking my time, even checking the path of the object ball to the pocket and saw what I thought was the lowest numbered ball on the table and pocketed that ball. It turned out to not be the ball that I was originally aiming at. lol The other player didn't say anything to me although he could have and he knew I was distracted but chose to remain quiet until I shot the wrong ball. I got what I expected and lost the tournament due to a distraction that shouldn't have happened.

To Earl's credit he got up off the 10 ball shot, when the guy in the white shirt craned his neck. Earl then went around trying to restart his engine and called the 10 ball the 2 ball.

Do we want to enforce rules PRECISELY as they are written for EVERY player, even when we know PRECISELY what the player was doing?

Is winning on a technicality what we want in pool?

Is winning by enforcing the letter of the rules the best way for pool to evolve?

Is pool doomed because MOST PLAYERS do what is best for themselves and not what is best for the game?

I know these are a lot of questions but all of us (including the fans, the 2 players, the referee, the tournament director and the promoter) need to be asking ourselves what we want from the game.

JoeyA

They call Nits Nit picking for a reason because that's what they do ,

1

 

[JoeyA]

Here's what the 14.1 committee had to say:

JoeyA

 

[hejests]

I always thought it would be interesting to know political parties on topics like this. I would think Democrats for Jayson and REPUBLICANS for Earl. Just to understand mindsets outside of politics.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm Canadian but if I were an American I'd be Democrat and I definitely take Earl's side on this.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Keith Jawahir]

I personally think it's only a problem among people who either don't like Earl or are indifferent to him. What about when SVB shot that obvious 10 in the corner, and Ronnie Alcano called him out on it?

 

[JohnnyOzone]

This would all go away IF they would just PATCH THE POCKET!!

 

[puertorociii]

In a world tournament of this level. If the obvious shot was the ten and he "supposedly" aimed at it with his cue BUT he called the 2 ball, what comes out of his mouth trumps any other gesture or assumption of what "ball" we think he is shooting a t. I was present and he said 2 ball, I heard it along with a bunch of other people.....Earl was doing everything to get under Shaws skin since the begging of the match. Shaw blowing up at the end was frustration showing how Earl got what he wanted when he was a cry baby the whole time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[one stroke]

I personally think it's only a problem among people who either don't like Earl or are indifferent to him. What about when SVB shot that obvious 10 in the corner, and Ronnie Alcano called him out on it?

That's a point however that's a call one ball money ball shot not near the same thing although intent really should come into play there that's why Shane broke his stick down and left and there were plenty of comments on that for and against

I just think maybe I'm wrong here , but I consider 14.1 a sacred game a gentleman's where there's a higher level of integrity and sportsmanship involved that you simply just don't see in other games and that's part of the beauty of the game

1

 

[one stroke]

In a world tournament of this level. If the obvious shot was the ten and he "supposedly" aimed at it with his cue BUT he called the 2 ball, what comes out of his mouth trumps any other gesture or assumption of what "ball" we think he is shooting a t. I was present and he said 2 ball, I heard it along with a bunch of other people.....Earl was doing everything to get under Shaws skin since the begging of the match. Shaw blowing up at the end was frustration showing how Earl got what he wanted when he was a cry baby the whole time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Oh stop Shaws no poster boy for good sportsmanship and he's every bit the cry baby Earl is and then some ,

 

[puertorociii]

Oh stop Shaws no poster boy for good sportsmanship and he's every bit the cry baby Earl is and then some ,

If it makes you feel better. I don't like either....Facts are facts. Earl is a pool legend but every bit of a cry baby and if you want to get technical Earl has been crying just as long as he's been playing pool so that makes him a better cry baby than Shaw.....Good Night.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk