SVB cheating? Shaw/SVB Derby 9 Ball

Once a year I will state the obvious fix: Get rid of the ball-on-the-break requirement. Shoot after the break and alternate breaks. Problem solved. It works and actually makes our short games better. Every year in the Spring I hold a pro event. Some of the more notable rack-mechanics in the country attend. My tournament moves right along without all the stressing over the rack and re-racks and all the grief we have come accustomed to. There is also an added bonus. The players get along much better and find playing more enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
Once a year I will state the obvious fix: Get rid of the ball-on-the-break requirement. Shoot after the break and alternate breaks. Problem solved. It works and actually makes our short games better. Every year in the Spring I hold a pro event. Some of the more notable rack-mechanics in the country attend. My tournament moves right along without all the stressing over the rack and re-racks and all the grief we have come accustomed to. There is also an added bonus. The players get along much better and find playing more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

A greenie for this brilliant and simple solution.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Once a year I will state the obvious fix: Get rid of the ball-on-the-break requirement. Shoot after the break and alternate breaks. Problem solved. It works and actually makes our short games better. Every year in the Spring I hold a pro event. Some of the more notable rack-mechanics in the country attend. My tournament moves right along without all the stressing over the rack and re-racks and all the grief we have come accustomed to. There is also an added bonus. The players get along much better and find playing more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting suggestion. In this tournament that you hold, does it have a 3 ball pass the head string rule? Or the one who breaks always shoot after the break no matter what?
 
I'll have to state that I am sort of biased in all this. I don't like Shaw because of all the previous jerk moves he made for years. And I do like Shane because I have not seen him act like a fool yet.

Apart from this: I believe the rack was off and that the pic posted was not doctored by Shaw. It is also way off to say Shaw could not have taken the pic as one poster said - because he spread the balls all over the table. Everybody could see when he took the pic - before he spread out the balls.

IMHO Shaw had every right to complain about the rack. The way in which he did it was unsportsmanlike not the complaint itself. I would expect a short look at the rack, calling my opponent to the table and showing him the problem. That would have been all that was called for.

Touching i.e. spreading the balls over the table is the first no-go, breaking off the match in anger the second.

And no, I don't believe in Shane being an angel as some people probably do. Call him out on his fishy racking but behave like a gentleman - that would be my solution.
 
KMRUNOUT said:
Reread what I said. Carefully. They are completely independent statements. Whether or not we can assume something logically is different than whether or not that thing actually happened. For example if I flip a coin and don't yet see the result, I cannot logically assume it is heads or tails. That has no bearing on whether it's head or tails.

FYI, when you alter what I've said, it doesn't mean the same thing any more. I said "we cannot assume Shaw gave him a tight rack *from what you've said*".

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Click to expand...


Fair enough
 
Paul Schofield said:
Once a year I will state the obvious fix: Get rid of the ball-on-the-break requirement. Shoot after the break and alternate breaks. Problem solved. It works and actually makes our short games better. Every year in the Spring I hold a pro event. Some of the more notable rack-mechanics in the country attend. My tournament moves right along without all the stressing over the rack and re-racks and all the grief we have come accustomed to. There is also an added bonus. The players get along much better and find playing more enjoyable.
Click to expand...


As much shit as I gave you over your "everyone is equal" rules. It starts to seem like a more and more logical solution given the increase of racking issues we see each year.


I don't know if it would be the best solution, but I would certainly like to see it tried in a major 9-ball event before passing any further judgement.
 
Swighey said:
Because it's amateur hour. I have no idea why anyone would want to organise an event like this but have matches played without a referee. It should be a given.
Click to expand...

Have you been to the derby? That many refs could be tricky.
 
easy-e said:
400+ in the tourney, multiple tourneys going on at the same time. Not sure how many they’d need, but it would take some time.
Click to expand...

That's a big tourney. A lot of referees will be needed. Economies of scale make it viable economically. The only remaining question is can we find referees that are good enough. My answer would be yes we will when we give them the experience of refereeing.
 
I hate rotation games because of the racking secrets. I try to get my opponent to agree to rack high and break straight on and I will do the same. Despite this I still encounter issues.

I believe Shaw was trying to get Svb to rack the balls the same way that he was!!!

Obviously svb refused.

Kd

Sent from the mobile client - Forum Talker
 
Swighey said:
That's a big tourney. A lot of referees will be needed. Economies of scale make it viable economically. The only remaining question is can we find referees that are good enough. My answer would be yes we will when we give them the experience of refereeing.
Click to expand...

"The only remaining question..." lol

Good luck finding them lodging or even just a place to stand.
 
Jerry R said:
I don't want to assume anything, but I think that what he was trying to say is that based on those threads back then it was "proven" that some people would defend Shane no matter what he does. Not that it was proven that he had actually done it. I could be wrong but that is how I interpreted the post.

Just typing about that whole topic gives me the creeps.
Click to expand...

Yep, basically. It was never proven, but it seriously bothered me that people (who probably have daughters themselves) would jump to his defense, and would probably offer up their own daughters to him. I mean, the guy plays pool real well, but that shouldn't excuse him from any type of accountability, especially when it's something like a guy in his mid-30's having a physical relationship with an underage teenager.

My point is, some people act like the guy can't do any wrong, no matter what he does.
 
Keith Jawahir said:
Yep, basically. It was never proven, but it seriously bothered me that people (who probably have daughters themselves) would jump to his defense, and would probably offer up their own daughters to him. I mean, the guy plays pool real well, but that shouldn't excuse him from any type of accountability, especially when it's something like a guy in his mid-30's having a physical relationship with an underage teenager.

My point is, some people act like the guy can't do any wrong, no matter what he does.
Click to expand...

I’ve spent a lot of time around Shane. I’d be thrilled if my daughter marries a guy like him, he’s great compared to most douchebags out there. We all have our ideas of what’s acceptable physically. I happen to be in an open relationship with my wife, so I’m not so sure I’m one to judge others sexual relationships.
 
LHP5 said:
Joe Tucker's Racking Secrets. This is a dead wing ball into the corner. Just spend the $20 and you'll see why. Most people should accept this rack if your opponent racked for you and you know where to break from. People always gave Mike Dechaine crap about his rack, but it looks like SVB is doing it too. To be fair though, I'm pretty sure all pros know how to rack and wire in a dead wing ball.
Click to expand...

Well sure, because as the Magic Rack has taught us (and the Sardo Rack before that), the absolute BEST way bar none to make sure you make the wing ball on the break is to have a perfect rack with all the balls touching.

If given a choice between breaking this rack, and breaking a perfect rack with all the balls touching, I'm taking the latter every time.
 
Bbutler said:
Well sure, because as the Magic Rack has taught us (and the Sardo Rack before that), the absolute BEST way bar none to make sure you make the wing ball on the break is to have a perfect rack with all the balls touching.

If given a choice between breaking this rack, and breaking a perfect rack with all the balls touching, I'm taking the latter every time.
Click to expand...

For sure a pure rack that had all the balls touching is preferable, but the rack in question has a ball in the corner if you break from the proper side. It does take some knowledge of the gaps in that rack to know how to make the wing ball, but it does go. To deny that is simply denying knowledge that all pros know.
 
LHP5 said:
For sure a pure rack that had all the balls touching is preferable, but the rack in question has a ball in the corner if you break from the proper side. It does take some knowledge of the gaps in that rack to know how to make the wing ball, but it does go. To deny that is simply denying knowledge that all pros know.
Click to expand...

The wing ball goes in on all kinds of racks, but it goes in most consistently on a perfect rack. This has been shown over and over again.

Therefore the most optimal rack for the breaker is a perfect rack.

Shane therefore put up a sub-optimal rack, yet made the wing ball despite it.

Shaw's complaint, essentially 'hey you're breaking a rack that gives you a disadvantage' is therefore laughable and he should feel bad about himself. qed
 
If they had two area referees on the main floor, the refs could do all the racking for the final rounds of the tournament. That would be an additional expense. They would need four refs so there could be some relief.

Paul Schofield's idea (breaker shoots next) would be one solution to solve the rack problem. Another is breaker has to push out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top