Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?

SBC said:
Get yourself a 5 gallon bucket and just throw the balls on the table each rack
Click to expand...
No. Just the first rack. And yes, if you did this your run would be legitimate.

Your high run is counted from the time you made your first legal ball until you make your last legal ball. Anything before or after that has no bearing on it. The fact that Jayson started his run of legal shots in the middle of a rack doesn't negate the fact that from that point he potted 669 balls legally in a row.
 
Mick said:
No. Just the first rack. And yes, if you did this your run would be legitimate.

Your high run is counted from the time you made your first legal ball until you make your last legal ball. Anything before or after that has no bearing on it. The fact that Jayson started his run of legal shots in the middle of a rack doesn't negate the fact that from that point he potted 669 balls legally in a row.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. If the agreed way to start "high run attempts" is from a continuous rack break then the high run should only count if it is made from this break.

In matchplay it can start from any shot.
 
Mick said:
No. Just the first rack. And yes, if you did this your run would be legitimate.

Your high run is counted from the time you made your first legal ball until you make your last legal ball. Anything before or after that has no bearing on it. The fact that Jayson started his run of legal shots in the middle of a rack doesn't negate the fact that from that point he potted 669 balls legally in a row.
Click to expand...
Not how it works after a foul in a high run attempt.
 
Mick said:
Do you dispute that he made 669 legal straight pool shots in a row? Because that it all the record measures.
Click to expand...
No dispute whatsoever. My point is that if high run attempts start with a continuous rack break rather than the standard opening break, then they could start from any situation. But they don't and if Shaw had known he had fouled (and I don't know if he did - it appears to be a contentious decision), then he would have started again - from the continuous rack break.
 
Mick said:
Because?

Edit: There are no guidelines for "high run attempts" anywhere. There are rules for specific events (ex. Derby), but neither John's or Jayson's attempts were bound by rules like these.
Click to expand...
Well if there are no agreed rules/conventions then the only legitimate high run would be in matchplay from any starting shot and in an "exhibition" from an opening break with 15 balls racked.

EDIT: it's these kind if things that make pool (organisationally) laughable. Think about how ridiculous it would be if snooker ratifed high breaks from any shot in practice. Every pro would have a ratified 155 break.

In straight pool, if you miss a ball you don't get the next shot. It goes to your opponent. If you are going for a high run and you miss then your innings is over.
 
Last edited:
Swighey said:
I think something is lost in translation here. The point being made, I think, is that on the opening break of 14.1, you can break anyway you like even though anything other than a defensive break is a bad idea.

For high run attempts a more open break would be desirable. However, it appears that it is agreed that these attempts start with a traditional continuous rack break with cueball in hand. So it still seems perfectly reasonable to say that a high ball attempt cannot start mid rack.
Click to expand...
Exactly
Solo high run attempts start with a break shot from ball in hand on 14 racked balls.
 
so technically this was a courtesy ruling?

in a normal run, a foul means the run is finished

could John have a case/avenue to dispute the record?

please correct me if I'm off base
 
CanadianGuy said:
so technically this was a courtesy ruling?

in a normal run, a foul means the run is finished

could John have a case/avenue to dispute the record?

please correct me if I'm off base
Click to expand...
There's nothing to "correct" The run finished when he fouled, and began after the foul. People can argue about it, but it's a done deal.
 
SBC said:
Because everytime a player misses in a solo high run attempt, they rerack.
Click to expand...
He either didn't notice the "foul" or believed he was playing cue ball fouls only. So it's not a normal situation.
 
CanadianGuy said:
so technically this was a courtesy ruling?

in a normal run, a foul means the run is finished

could John have a case/avenue to dispute the record?

please correct me if I'm off base
Click to expand...
You are not.

Nobody ever counts from a miss in a solo run attempt.

All the high run contests at Derby ect...restart. As does every player in their own personal bests. This has been established for many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top