Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?

This is funny too..if you watch pro-golf..every course is different and the funny thing is the players, fans and analysts discuss it often. The greens are playing fast.... or slow from day to day because it is wet! This course is easier than that course etc....sound familiar? :eek: o_O :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: (y)
 
loggerhead12 said:
I'm not sure baseball is a great example. Ground rules make play at many ballparks different. It's a lot like pool halls that way. ;-)
Click to expand...
Yes. That is why baseball is a perfect example..at least I think so...and why I brought it up at the start of our side chat.

Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?

https://www.azbilliards.com/jayson-shaw-achieves-record-straight-pool-high-run/
forums.azbilliards.com
 
Last edited:
xradarx said:
No one is ever required to call any foul on one’s self.
The opponent must call the foul.
The opponent must ask for a referee to identify and call a foul, only if requested by an opponent, prior to execution of a questionable possible foul, thereby putting the responsibility to make the foul call, entirely on the referee.
Referees are just that, unless their assistance is asked for prior to any close shot.
Y’all need to get out of those boy’s clubs and visit the real pool world occasionally.
In the absence of an opponent, other options must be made and agreeable with the individual.
Click to expand...
I have played in the US open straight pool championship and I was required to sit quietly in my chair. The match was run by the ref. He called all fouls, often hovering around the player watching.

I remember Lassiter sitting there with his eyes closed. Not his job to follow around the player.
 
Last edited:
Get out the

popcorn.png


Arnaldo ~ The MON/Radar express is on the runway ready for action
 
Here’s my zoomed in blurry analysis from my phone. When I see that I assume he grazed the ball on a backstroke and the ball rocked back in place on its own. To me it looked like motion and not autofocus.

 
xradarx said:
Which boy’s club was this match held at?
The ref would have been told to move out of the line of shots and would not be allowed to stand directly behind active shooters shots.
In other words the ref would have been instructed to have a seat until called upon to perform his duties.
Click to expand...
Long time ago but if I remember correctly the Sheraton Chicago ballroom.

What is worse, is the guy standing behind you calling the balls and anouncing the run. Wearing a suit doesn't help either. It can all be distracting.
 
Last edited:
MattPoland said:
Here’s my zoomed in blurry analysis from my phone. When I see that I assume he grazed the ball on a backstroke and the ball rocked back in place on its own. To me it looked like motion and not autofocus.

Click to expand...
A foul under any rules.

Who's that shooting, at what event? (Sorry, I haven't kept up with the thread.)

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
A foul under any rules.

Who's that shooting, at what event? (Sorry, I haven't kept up with the thread.)

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I zoomed in on the footage arnaldo posted. I am assuming that was Shaw’s foul on ball 65. There was question whether he moved the ball. Everyone is using big TVs and magnifying glasses. I simply used software on my phone to zoom in.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It was ball 45. The one ball while shooting over the nine in rack 4

Of course it wasn't autofocus All of the balls at roughly the same distance from the camera would have moved similarly if the camera had been misbehaving.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the numerical correction. I was shooting off the hip on the number. I just wanted to see for myself and that looked more conclusive than anything I’ve seen prior. But it’s a big thread so I might have missed someone else already doing the same.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It was ball 45. The one ball while shooting over the nine in rack 4

Of course it wasn't autofocus All of the balls at roughly the same distance from the camera would have moved similarly if the camera had been misbehaving.
Click to expand...
It might look like it didn’t really matter, since the 9 ball just rocked a little - but touching a ball that’s in the way of your shot is a foul in my book even with a cue ball-only rule.

His “714” mementos could actually become more valuable as a result of all the weirdness.

pj
chgo
 
I do want to first say I 100% trust Bobby and Jayson that if they thought it was a foul then they’d own it. That was clearly the kind you wouldn’t feel as a player.

Second, I just don’t care. To riff on a fun conversation from the Cue It Up podcast, these high runs are a hotdog eating contest. I really get a kick out of them. I couldn’t care less if we are using tournament rules. Jayson ran an amazing 714 for all I care.

I don’t doubt he will top it again. I know in my heart that any 800+ player can run over 1000 if they put their heart into it. Jayson seems to have that competitive side to him.

If his legacy isn’t going to be 6 US Opens then it can at least be a combination of being one of the most dominant Mosconi Cup players of all time and this too. Because this isn’t a gimme. You gotta earn it. And he is.
 
7stud said:
Why did Jayson always rerack on a miss during his high run attempts if you can start a run mid rack? I assume all the other players who made high run attempts prior to Jayson also reracked after a miss. I never saw Earl start runs mid rack, although I didn't watch all of his play. Bobby should be able to confirm, did Bobby always rerack after a miss?

And, while John Schmidt did not make the video of his high run available publicly, he did post video of his other high run attempts, and for the record in one of those videos he moved an object ball with his hand, and he kept shooting, he did not end the run. I've posted the time stamp where he moved the ball before.
Click to expand...

I need to preface this by saying, years ago I read somewhere (whether print or online is irrelevant) that you run begins AFTER a miss or foul and that's how I have played my 14.1 for years.

There are at least 13 pages of replies I haven't read before posting this so, take it with a grain of salt but...

1) Habit - during these events they are playing ALL day so it becomes a habit to take a break between attempts and (for reasons unknown) they re-rack, I do it myself.
2) Familiarity - maybe it's just what they do?
3) Maximum balls made - if I run 13 balls and miss and have a questionable leave why would I chance 2 balls when I can start over and get a clean break?
4) Immaterial - the man ran 658/669/714 (whatever you want to call it) and a few balls in the previous rack is immaterial so - post up or shut up.

7stud said:
If you are playing cue ball fouls only, can you just move problem balls with your hand?
Click to expand...

Intentional versus non-intentional - please don't be THAT guy.
 
mikemosconi said:
Yesterday John Schmidt moved a cue ball that appeared very close to the rack up into the kitchen without allowing the racker to place the rack in position to make the proper determination as to whether the CB should be moved. If you are going to use a rack, and a racker, they should be the person to make CB interference with a rack determinations.

Mosconi did not rack for himself during exhibitions and was not the judge on CB location within the rack - it was always an independent decision. BTW- this CB was behind the rack and the camera had no clear view of where anyone could see the CB location. This is not an accusation- it is just an observation of how stuff is going down during these attempts.

As for Cranfield, Mosconi, and Co. - come on- with these tables here they could have run 1,000 if they had incentive.I could drive my car through the side pocket on John's table:)
Click to expand...

There are at least 13 pages of replies I haven't read before posting this so, take it with a grain of salt but...


Did you see when the racker moved the rack so it was WAY above the spot so he could see the the ball?

In my opinion - NOTHING else needs to be said about John Schmidt's credibility.

EDIT: Ok, one more thing - there's a difference between arrogance and confidence.

1653457135232.png
 
Chili Palmer said:
There are at least 13 pages of replies I haven't read before posting this so, take it with a grain of salt but...


Did you see when the racker moved the rack so it was WAY above the spot so he could see the the ball?

In my opinion - NOTHING else needs to be said about John Schmidt's credibility.

EDIT: Ok, one more thing - there's a difference between arrogance and confidence.

View attachment 643257
Click to expand...
Because Cuesports Live made a copyright claim against me, I’m just going to post this as much I can when relevant:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top