Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?

[Chili Palmer]

And why would they pull the spot the next day?

 

[Black-Balled]

Well, good morning ya all, I see everyone has been keeping busy.

So here's what I have to say:

As previously pointed out, players have traditionally start a high run attempt with a break shot, mostly because it's tradition and it makes keeping the count easy. In the case of Mosconi's run, his opponent made three balls and then Mosconi came to the table and ran 526 from an open rack. IOWs, there aren't rules for high runs, though I have reason to believe that's going to change real soon.

Back in March, Bobby flew out to Colorado to show Jayson's run to BCA officials. A committee of six watched in an executive suite Bobby had reserved, on an 70” screen. At one point someone thought there might have been an OB foul and they re-ran the tape over a half dozen times and there was still doubt. Regardless, at the conclusion of the review, a vote was taken and it was unanimously agreed upon, given the rules posted on the BCA website which clearly stated CB fouls only, the 714 would be certified as the new record.

Now it appears that after that first BCA meeting, a second committee was formed and a new vote taken. Bobby was not invited to attend. And, with a 3-1 vote, suddenly OB fouls were to be counted and the record was now 669. It is my understanding that the dissenting vote came from a professional player on the committee -- a very highly regarded Hall of Famer.

Bobby asked Jayson about the foul and Jayson said he did not foul any OBs during his run. I have watched the run and cannot tell conclusively if he rocked a ball back while jacked up over it or not. But here we are. And IMO that place is at the following coordinates: if you're going to accept the BCA moving the goal posts with a possible OB foul, then logic dictates that you must also accept his record at 669.

But there's one more thing: until someone can prove that other high runs where completed without OB fouls, that 714 still looks pretty good, IMO.

Lou Figueroa

You covered a lot of ground there and the transparency is appreciated.

I'm a committee chair when I put my work shoes on and unfortunately, determinations can only be made with the information on hand and when there is something that is essentially 50/50, I don't think the committee should make a negative finding.

It is unfortunate the BCA convened it's own- secondary- review group, that the group did not permit Bobby's participation, that the ultimate finding was a negative,.that the ultimate finding was based on a minority opinion...

Pool. Lol

 

[Black-Balled]

All I know is that the BCA gave Jayson’s run the equivalent of a protological exam — when we asked for John’s run to be re-reviewed with the same level of scrutiny, the BCA demurred for unknown reasons.

I also know the initial BCA review of John’s run was far more casual, and accomplished by a far less credentialed committee, than for their review of Jayson’s run. Twice.

Lou Figueroa

Could be the BCA 'refined' its review process, based on its review of its experience with 626.

More lol.

 

[Straightpool_99]

And why would they pull the spot the next day?

These spots are notoriously difficult to work with. They peel up and get in the way, and some times they make racking MORE difficult, rather than less. I would understand removing it, in normal cases, but in this particular case I'd have to be a lot more sceptical of the motivation. Also, the problems with the spot usually materializes much later in its lifespan.

Anyway, a lot can be said about JS' ethics and track record based on earlier runs, but very little can be said about the previous world record run, until it can be properly reviewed by unbiased experts. I mean unbiased, too, not people with personal grievances, and preferably not ancient hottub salesmen with the visual acuities of concussed hedgehogs. The best thing would be to release the video, if he has nothing to hide. Its value is now mostly gone, anyways. For all I know, it may be perfectly legitimate. Just because he has behaved <ahem> questionably in some cases doesn't mean he did so on this occation. One of Azb's most trusted and knowledgeable members has signed off on this run, saying he could see no fouls or other infractions. That does count for something, quite a lot for me, personally. It's maybe not enough now, that suspicions have arisen, but it certainly merits some caution in claiming shenanigans.

 

[Black-Balled]

...
As to glass houses: we accepted the BCA’s ruling without a peep.

Lou Figueroa

You know that was the best decision...though I hope there was some closed door cussin and at least 1 pen throw?

 

[lfigueroa]

Could be the BCA 'refined' its review process, based on its review of its experience with 626.

More lol.

From the accounts I’ve heard, second hand albeit, that would be a very generous interpretation of their rationale.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

You know that was the best decision...though I hope there was some closed door cussin and at least 1 pen throw?

lol.

Lou Figueroa
got a few texts that
heated up ma phone

 

[Chicagoplayer]

Ok, Schmidt's relevant comment on YouTube is "The rocking rules are not set in stone you can rock a little high in a little low but I think we push the limits on that one"

So it appears that Schmidt actually is ignorant of the rules. The balls are to be racked with the apex ball (or the missing apex ball after the opening rack) on the foot spot. But the foot spot is not the gummed sticker, it is a point -- the intersection of the long string and the foot string. So the rules do not permit racking a little high or low.

Schmidt has also told (wrote it to me) me the same thing as has one other 14.1 aficionado.
I was told it’s a “gray area”.

So in other words, they do rack high, rack low from time to time.

Which is why Schmidt’s 626 has come into question.

 

[Chili Palmer]

These spots are notoriously difficult to work with. They peel up and get in the way, and some times they make racking MORE difficult, rather than less. I would understand removing it, in normal cases, but in this particular case I'd have to be a lot more sceptical of the motivation. Also, the problems with the spot usually materializes much later in its lifespan.

Anyway, a lot can be said about JS' ethics and track record based on earlier runs, but very little can be said about the previous world record run, until it can be properly reviewed by unbiased experts. I mean unbiased, too, not people with personal grievances, and preferably not ancient hottub salesmen with the visual acuities of concussed hedgehogs. The best thing would be to release the video, if he has nothing to hide. Its value is now mostly gone, anyways. For all I know, it may be perfectly legitimate. Just because he has behaved <ahem> questionably in some cases doesn't mean he did so on this occation. One of Azb's most trusted and knowledgeable members has signed off on this run, saying he could see no fouls or other infractions. That does count for something, quite a lot for me, personally. It's maybe not enough now, that suspicions have arisen, but it certainly merits some caution in claiming shenanigans.

Yep, been around long enough to know spots can give you trouble, I didn't even put one on my table at home. Point being, I didn't see one issue with a rack due to the spot while watching this (I didn't see the entire run though) and then the last rack of one day something questionable is done then the next morning - POOF - spot is gone

All this reminds me of The King of Kong documentary

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007) ⭐ 8.0 | Documentary, Biography, Sport

1h 19m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

 

[Chili Palmer]

Schmidt has also told me the same thing as has one other 14.1 aficionado.
I was told it’s a “gray area”.

So in other words, they do rack high, rack low.

Even I have an outline of the rack on my home table because I know the rack is supposed to be in the same spot each time.

 

[wrldpro]

You covered a lot of ground there and the transparency is appreciated.

I'm a committee chair when I put my work shoes on and unfortunately, determinations can only be made with the information on hand and when there is something that is essentially 50/50, I don't think the committee should make a negative finding.

It is unfortunate the BCA convened it's own- secondary- review group, that the group did not permit Bobby's participation, that the ultimate finding was a negative,.that the ultimate finding was based on a minority opinion...

Pool. Lol

actually it was 3 committees not 2.

Here are the facts on video.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Schmidt has also told (wrote it to me) me the same thing as has one other 14.1 aficionado.
I was told it’s a “gray area”.

So in other words, they do rack high, rack low.

Which is why Schmidt’s 626 has come into question.

To test this grey area theory out, he should try it in the next 14.1 tournament he plays in. I’m sure his opponent will accept that explanation.

Yep, been around long enough to know spots can give you trouble, I didn't even put one on my table at home. Point being, I didn't see one issue with a rack due to the spot while watching this (I didn't see the entire run though) and then the last rack of one day something questionable is done then the next morning - POOF - spot is gone

All this reminds me of The King of Kong documentary

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007) ⭐ 8.0 | Documentary, Biography, Sport

1h 19m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

I love that documentary. Someone should totally do this.

If Jayson weren’t already an established top player it would even be a similar premise. Dude sets a high run behind closed doors and then new guy breaks record on live on camera.

 

[Black-Balled]

actually it was 3 committees not 2.

Lol. More is better!

 

[Texas Carom Club]

i try to stay away from the site for a few weeks and look what happened

 

[Black-Balled]

Ok, Schmidt's relevant comment on YouTube is "The rocking rules are not set in stone you can rock a little high in a little low but I think we push the limits on that one"

So it appears that Schmidt actually is ignorant of the rules. The balls are to be racked with the apex ball (or the missing apex ball after the opening rack) on the foot spot. But the foot spot is not the gummed sticker, it is a point -- the intersection of the long string and the foot string. So the rules do not permit racking a little high or low.

Neither the BCA rule page, nor its (wpa,) definitions page define foot spot as a miniscule point.

In reality, racking areas change shape as a result of use and time. It may be impossible to rack the balls on exactly the same spot today or tomorrow.

If head balls were required to be on that tiny intersection point, it would be extremely difficult to comply with this in the real world.

 

[Black-Balled]

i try to stay away from the site for a few weeks and look what happened

Gfy

 

[middleofnowhere]

Neither the BCA rule page, nor its (wpa,) definitions page define foot spot as a miniscule point.

In reality, racking areas change shape as a result of use and time. It may be impossible to rack the balls on exactly the same spot today or tomorrow.

If head balls were required to be on that tiny intersection point, it would be extremely difficult to comply with this in the real world.

On a 4.5 x 9 foot table with a playing area of 100 x 50 inches there is an exact location for the spot.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Neither the BCA rule page, nor its (wpa,) definitions page define foot spot as a miniscule point.

In reality, racking areas change shape as a result of use and time. It may be impossible to rack the balls on exactly the same spot today or tomorrow.

If head balls were required to be on that tiny intersection point, it would be extremely difficult to comply with this in the real world.

Well, it certainly isn't defined as being "within the circumference of a paper spot" or something to that effect. If, so, couldn't I buy a giant spot and just move the rack around as I pleased? I would certainly think that purposfully moving the rack about in order to extract an advantage would be against several rules.
Regarding the foot spot it's defined as:
"..the foot spot, where the foot string and the long string meet;" So it is indeed the intersection of two lines. If we use the kitchen line as an example of accuracy required, we'd see that it is very accurate indeed. The center of the ball is past, the ball is past. That doesn't give a whole lot of wiggle room, IMO. The kitchen line is usually pencil-line thin, as is the spotting line. I've never seen one an inch thick. So your contention is that the intersection is formed by a pencil thin line intersecting a hugely thick line, as thick as this paper spot?

4.2 The 14.1 Rack​

For an opening break shot, the fifteen balls are racked in a triangle with the apex ball on the foot spot. When the balls are re-racked, the apex ball is omitted if only fourteen balls are being racked. The marked outline of the triangle will be used to determine whether an intended break ball is in the rack area.



Would you not expect the same accuracy in racking as you would spotting a ball? With the generocity you here impart, it would give you great liberties in spotting balls in a favourable or disadvantageous way, for yourself or your opponent. If I saw someone spotting a ball so far off to the side or so far away from another ball, as JS' rack is off the spot, I certainly would go ballistic.

 

[Black-Balled]

Well, it certainly isn't defined as being "within the circumference of a paper spot" or something to that effect. If, so, couldn't I buy a giant spot and just move the rack around as I pleased? I would certainly think that purposfully moving the rack about in order to extract an advantage would be against several rules.
Regarding the foot spot it's defined as:
"..the foot spot, where the foot string and the long string meet;" So it is indeed the intersection of two lines. If we use the kitchen line as an example of accuracy required, we'd see that it is very accurate indeed. The center of the ball is past, the ball is past. That doesn't give a whole lot of wiggle room, IMO. The kitchen line is usually pencil thin, as is the spotting line. I've never seen one an inch thick. So your contention is that the intersection is formed by a pencil thin line intersecting a hugely thick line, as thick as this paper spot?

4.2 The 14.1 Rack​

For an opening break shot, the fifteen balls are racked in a triangle with the apex ball on the foot spot. When the balls are re-racked, the apex ball is omitted if only fourteen balls are being racked. The marked outline of the triangle will be used to determine whether an intended break ball is in the rack area.



Would you not expect the same accuracy in racking as you would spotting a ball? With the generocity you here impart, it would give you great liberties in spotting balls in a favourable or disadvantageous way, for yourself or your opponent. If I saw someone spotting a ball so far off to the side or so far away from another ball, as JS' rack. I certainly would go ballistic.

I think the technicality must be evaluated with the user in mind and as I suggested, sometime the balls won't rack in an exact spot.

I do agree the outline issue presents a conundrum, when combined with moving alignment of the rack.

I would add balls are supposed to be racked tightly, as per rules

 

[lfigueroa]

Well, it certainly isn't defined as being "within the circumference of a paper spot" or something to that effect. If, so, couldn't I buy a giant spot and just move the rack around as I pleased? I would certainly think that purposfully moving the rack about in order to extract an advantage would be against several rules.
Regarding the foot spot it's defined as:
"..the foot spot, where the foot string and the long string meet;" So it is indeed the intersection of two lines. If we use the kitchen line as an example of accuracy required, we'd see that it is very accurate indeed. The center of the ball is past, the ball is past. That doesn't give a whole lot of wiggle room, IMO. The kitchen line is usually pencil-line thin, as is the spotting line. I've never seen one an inch thick. So your contention is that the intersection is formed by a pencil thin line intersecting a hugely thick line, as thick as this paper spot?

4.2 The 14.1 Rack​

For an opening break shot, the fifteen balls are racked in a triangle with the apex ball on the foot spot. When the balls are re-racked, the apex ball is omitted if only fourteen balls are being racked. The marked outline of the triangle will be used to determine whether an intended break ball is in the rack area.



Would you not expect the same accuracy in racking as you would spotting a ball? With the generocity you here impart, it would give you great liberties in spotting balls in a favourable or disadvantageous way, for yourself or your opponent. If I saw someone spotting a ball so far off to the side or so far away from another ball, as JS' rack is off the spot, I certainly would go ballistic.

Just think how anal 9ball players are about racking.

Lou Figueroa