Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Thanks for the video.
To me, it's a tough call. I personally wouldn't have said anything after the shot because it was clear what he was trying but I can see why Jayson did. I think fireworks are good for the game and this is very much fireworks. Jayson is a good person with a good heart, Earl is the opposite of that. I don't like Earl in the least bit. That said, I think Jayson is out of line. We all get out of line sometimes though.
I don't however think anyone was in danger of being hit by a ball as Freddie suggested. He was out of line but not over the top.
Also:
Thanks for the video.
To me, it's a tough call. I personally wouldn't have said anything after the shot because it was clear what he was trying but I can see why Jayson did. I think fireworks are good for the game and this is very much fireworks. Jayson is a good person with a good heart, Earl is the opposite of that. I don't like Earl in the least bit. That said, I think Jayson is out of line. We all get out of line sometimes though.
I don't however think anyone was in danger of being hit by a ball as Freddie suggested. He was out of line but not over the top.
Also:
In one of the videos, after the decision was made and Jayson threw the balls, you can hear him say "If I see him outside, I'm gonna knock him out" or something to that extent.
And I'm sure he saw him outside... and I'm sure he didn't hit him. He's upset, people say and do things they don't mean when they're upset. It's going to be ok.
WPA Rules: 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.
There was a ref and the ref said it was an obvious shot.
Shaw said he called the 2, TD stepped in, reviewed tape and I watched it many of times, cant hear over commentators, could have been ten or two that he said, but dont know, he did point to pocket and it was obvious he was hitting the 10. So it was obvious.
Could accent have played into interpretation here? Jayson with a British/Irish accent listening to Earl who still has his North Carolina Southern Accent?
Also if Jayson heard two ball he should have confirmed it with Earl or the ref watching the match. Call goes to the shooter.
I agree with the TD on the call 100%, unable to determine what was called, it was obvious, even pointed to the pocket and rules of the WPA standard clarified any and all injustices.
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.
There was a ref and the ref said it was an obvious shot.
Shaw said he called the 2, TD stepped in, reviewed tape and I watched it many of times, cant hear over commentators, could have been ten or two that he said, but dont know, he did point to pocket and it was obvious he was hitting the 10. So it was obvious.
Could accent have played into interpretation here? Jayson with a British/Irish accent listening to Earl who still has his North Carolina Southern Accent?
Also if Jayson heard two ball he should have confirmed it with Earl or the ref watching the match. Call goes to the shooter.
I agree with the TD on the call 100%, unable to determine what was called, it was obvious, even pointed to the pocket and rules of the WPA standard clarified any and all injustices.
Thanks, that makes me feel a little better inside.
Good, I'm very concerned about your feelings.
Why dontcha say we get outta here?
I'll call you at the usual time tonight, 1am after everyone is asleep.
He was going for the ten and called the two...
The ten was the obvious shot though, ain't nobody in their right mind going for that 2 ball carom...
The ten was the obvious shot though, ain't nobody in their right mind going for that 2 ball carom...
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.
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.
Good, I'm glad we have consensus that Earl lied, and through this unsportsmanlike conduct cheated to gain an advantage in pure desperation. What would you suggest by way of punishment? Assuming you don't endorse this type of cheating?
So Earl is a cheat, that's a fact. Deciding if the shot was "obvious", however, is subjective. To me an obvious shot is where only the cue ball and one object ball are involved in the shot. But here Earl talked about playing a carom, then called the two and got down and shot a very thin cut sending whitely pace into the stack that contained the two, scattering the pack. Given that I can't agree that the shot was obvious, I can't agree that it was an obvious misstatement by Earl when he called the two. He's a substantially better player than I ever will be and will see all kinds of shots that I won't, especially playing caroms and plants. What is obvious, is that since the referee called a loss of innings for EXACTLY the same thing earlier in the match, the precedent had been set and it was quite understandable to expect the same outcome would occur here. I mean, you would be miffed if during a match someone scratched and carried on shooting, wouldn't you? Would you stay in your chair if that happened? Would you keep your cool if they then told the ref that they never scratched? How about if the ref agreed it was obviously a mistake to scratch and they should keep their innings? What if the cheat then refused your concession and tried to carry on shooting?
To answer the second part of your question "And do you think the failure to win on that is being cheated?" No, I don't think that failure to win on that is being cheated, even though it would be pretty tough to take the rules seeming to change at such a crucial point in the match. The cheating was the lies told by Earl about what had happened. Earl had called nearly every ball in the match, there's no way he didn't know he called a ball, even if he was confused about which one it might have been.
Last edited:
What I meant was, there's more than one video of the incident, and in one of those it is quite clear that the two was called. If you have to turn up the headphones to hear it you're not watching the version where it's clear what ball was called. :thumbup:
And since clear evidence that Earl called the two ball had emerged before the final was played, do you still think the ruling should go against Earl or has your opinion somehow changed?
Pool's rules suck. They have a way of making the players look bad. If you can believe that John B.
John B.
I didn't think the ruling should have gone against Earl.
Saying that the only way the ruling could have gone against him is if there was clear evidence that he called the 2 ball is not the same thing as saying that the ruling should have gone go against him if there was clear evidence that he called the 2 ball.
I believe the call-shot rules are there to make clear what shot the shooter is shooting when it's not an obvious shot (combinations, banks, clusters, etc.), not to catch someone on a technicality when they misspeak and call the wrong ball.
So, I think it was obvious that Earl was shooting the 10, and I think he should have gotten credit for pocketing the 10.
So if you and I were playing straight pool, and I was shooting only obvious shots, but called the wrong ball every time.
You would be okay with that?
No, I would whack you upside the head with my cue.
Thankfully, Earl was not calling the wrong ball every time.