Should Earl be ejected given the "evidence"
- Thread starter Kid Dynomite
- Start date
If roles were reversed I am for certain that Earl would have the class to know that It was a simple verbal error and let it slide. Earl is thorough bread American winner, he takes pride in winning with on his ability. He wouldn't take pride in winning on an opponents(and supposed friend)verbal brain fart and stupid technicality, he just wouldn't. This is such a silly controversy I can't believe I'm even posting in this thread. Jayson Shaw is disgracing this great sport that is supposed to be a gentlemen's game, based on honor, courtesy, good sportsmanship, and class. Wtf is this game coming to?
I guess you haven't read much of the posts on AZ.
Earl had a verbal hiccup
Exonerated by the rules....Google 'intent'
Jayson is a nit...applauded by the bar rules crowd
Case closed
(all rise as judge exits)
I guess I've missed it, again....and no, I haven't watched the video. I've read portions of several of the threads regarding the topic, and it seems to me that I've seen several people post here that Earl did point his cue at the 10. Yes, after verbally calling the 2, but again, pointing towards the 10 to me indicates that is what he fully intended and indicated.
Perhaps I've misread, and certainly I should watch the video, but assuming those reports to be true, I do not understand all the angst.
Of course, I've been baffled before, and likely will be again....
Perhaps I've misread, and certainly I should watch the video, but assuming those reports to be true, I do not understand all the angst.
Of course, I've been baffled before, and likely will be again....
Sorry Neil, I don't agree with you. You see, Jayson was sure of the shot, just like everyone else in the building was sure of the 10 Ball Shot, including the commentators and the referee. THAT is why the rule needs modifying.
The rule as it is worded ALLOWS FOR A PLAYER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RULE.
When rules encourage players to win by technicalities the rules need changing, imo.
The way this rule was abused is similar to the rule in APA whereby the shooter must place a "patch" by the pocket in which he is shooting the winning 8 ball into it. Both of these rules are amateurish and do not encourage fair play and gentlemanly behavior.
I blame the rule for this fiasco, not the referee or either player.
JoeyA
The rule as it is worded ALLOWS FOR A PLAYER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RULE.
When rules encourage players to win by technicalities the rules need changing, imo.
The way this rule was abused is similar to the rule in APA whereby the shooter must place a "patch" by the pocket in which he is shooting the winning 8 ball into it. Both of these rules are amateurish and do not encourage fair play and gentlemanly behavior.
I blame the rule for this fiasco, not the referee or either player.
JoeyA
You know what, Jdub?
I've always liked your voice on AZ.....I don't drink much, but if we ever meet....
...I'll buy the first 18 rounds.
In Earl's case, I must say that I have no clue what he would do if the roles had been reversed. I have seen instances of Earl exhibiting excellent sportsmanship and would not be shocked at all if Earl had said nothing and let Jayson shoot. But I've also seen Earl act like a nutcase that defies logic. So I'd never wager one way or the other about how Earl would act.
You are kidding, right ? I don't understand this kind of thinking. Trying to turn black into white as we say in my country.
It says: "he may ask for a call" and not "he should ask for a call".
Strickland made the call which was wrong. Did you expect his opponent to ask him to think again ?
I saw the results in this poll. I know most of the guys who voted "no" are from the U.S. Seems like you don't respect the rules so much.....
If Efren Reyes did the same mistake, he would accept it and sit down without acting like a 3-year old kid.
Why ? Because he is a real sportsman.
You guys are unbeatable !!!!!!!!
Last edited:
I will gladly take you up on that, pt....and I don't drink as much as I used to, so 18 rounds might take us a while
Being from the U.S. or somewhere else has no bearing whatsoever. Being able to comprehend what one is reading does. Notice it says "may" call for a ruling. That doesn't imply that if he doesn't call for a ruling, it is then an automatic foul.
It simply means that if he is unsure of the call, he can have it clarified if he so wishes to. If he doesn't have it clarified, then it would automatically go to the shooter just like any other time.
Watch the video, the one acting like the 3 year old is Shaw. Doing whatever he feels like regardless of the rules, throwing a fit and yelling to try and get his way, and then throwing a tantrum and tossing the balls around the room when he doesn't get his way.
Earl was very restrained by smacking his cue on the floor instead of across Jayson's head.
This was after Strickland's reaction.
If I was playing instead of Shaw, I wouldn't say anything. I don't call fouls when my opponent touches a ball while trying to place his bridge hand. I often "click" my fingers when my opponent has to play the "easy" 9 to show him that he doesn't have to play the shot.
This doesn't mean that I expect my opponents to do the same when I am at the table. And I will not say anything if they call all the fouls and let me play all the shots. I often call my own fouls (for example if I touch a ball with my hand).
Strickland doesn't respect the rules. And I would say he shows no respect to his opponents. He has never done that. He is not a sportsman.
I agree with you that Earl is not a good sportsman - he is a crazy person and the worst sportsman in pool, without a doubt. But just like whether or not you are from the US is irrelevant to the facts here, whether or not Earl is a crazy person and poor sport is irrelevant to what happened here. Earl made a verbal misstatement about an obvious shot, Jayson tried to call him on it, and then Jayson threw a violent tantrum when he didn't get to win on it. I'm sure Earl's past behavior in the match had an effect on Jayson, but that too is irrelevant to who was the poor sport in this specific ball-calling situation.
Apart from the behavior of the two players, the RULE ITSELF IS AT FAULT. The rule is ambiguous and poorly written, and this case is the perfect illustration.
The rule states that the player's intention must be clear, either by the obvious situation on the table, or by an explicit call by the shooter. But it does not foresee the situation where the two types of indicators are in conflict.
Apparently, the TD here thinks that in the case of a conflict the verbal call rules--otherwise why even bother to try and listen to the tape to figure out what the call was. Others think that if it was obvious from the situation on the table what the player's intention was the verbal call is beside the point. What all this conflict of opinion proves is that THE RULE IS AMBIGUOUS.
The rule should explicitly state that where the situation on the table is clear and the intention of the shooter is obvious, then this supercedes any verbal call. Where the situation on the table and the shooter's intention is not obvious, then whatever the shooter's call was is controlling (even if the shooter claims this was not his intention).
End of ambiguity--end of this type of FUBAR.
The rule states that the player's intention must be clear, either by the obvious situation on the table, or by an explicit call by the shooter. But it does not foresee the situation where the two types of indicators are in conflict.
Apparently, the TD here thinks that in the case of a conflict the verbal call rules--otherwise why even bother to try and listen to the tape to figure out what the call was. Others think that if it was obvious from the situation on the table what the player's intention was the verbal call is beside the point. What all this conflict of opinion proves is that THE RULE IS AMBIGUOUS.
The rule should explicitly state that where the situation on the table is clear and the intention of the shooter is obvious, then this supercedes any verbal call. Where the situation on the table and the shooter's intention is not obvious, then whatever the shooter's call was is controlling (even if the shooter claims this was not his intention).
End of ambiguity--end of this type of FUBAR.
Earl called the tow
I watched the video Jasyon posted on Facebook and I heard Earl, talking to himself and perhaps someone in the audience say "you know what Efren would do? He would play the carom". Walks around calls the two and shoots.
I think he was playing the two.
Bert
I watched the video Jasyon posted on Facebook and I heard Earl, talking to himself and perhaps someone in the audience say "you know what Efren would do? He would play the carom". Walks around calls the two and shoots.
I think he was playing the two.
Bert
I agree with you but I have to add, that Jayson's attempt to have Earl penalized for the verbal misstatement "on the 10 ball, an obvious shot-WHICH DOESN'T REQUIRE the player to call/indicate) is based upon the fact that referee allowed that same situation to happen earlier where Earl was penalized for calling the wrong ball. So it is the earlier mistake by the referee that put Jayson into the position where he thought he was being horse-****ed.
Rules should be designed to close loop-holes such as this.
JoeyA
Where? :scratchhead:
Did you watch the video?
Seriously? You did watch it and you still think he was intending to make the two? If so, I would LOVE to watch a video or three of you playing. Because, if you think a carom on the two is a viable shot, you must be 10 times better than Efren or Earl ever dreamed of being.
He was talking about the carom on the 11 ball.