Why wouldn’t you at the very least acknowledge a high run starting at the next break ball after 44?
Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit
- Thread starter Dan Harriman
- Start date
- Status
If that's true then why would they change it to All Ball Fouls. If what you say is true then there would be no need to change the rules!
Actually the 44 ball run wasn't hyperbole. The high run attempts are based on straight pool. Had he fouled on the 45th ball of any match, formal or informal, he would mark up forty-four points and sit down.
Had he been aware of the foul he would have simply started over, a lot of short runs in anybody's attempts for big numbers. Not a big deal. He didn't start over though and the BCA was asked to certify a 714 ball run. That being the case, their options were to certify nothing, or certify a 44 ball attempt. The 714 ball run ended at ball 45.
Hu
I suffered through the first 65 years of my life with the Mosconi run , which in my opinion , probably never happened either,and then Schmidts run and now Jasons. I don't know how much time I have spent , reading about them or thinking about them , but I do know that whatever the number is , it is all wasted time, I would have rather been kicking a tin can down a dirt road .
Why at the next break ball? That would make even less sense than what they did. They were asked to certify a 714 ball run. That didn't happen. Why should they grab one section or another of the run to certify? Why not call it a 713 ball run, excluding the foul? Endless why nots but unless it was submitted to them as a 669 ball run it makes no sense to me to start after a foul. Would they have started after a miss? If I was on the committee I don't know if I would have accepted a 669 ball run even if that was what was submitted. His very first shot to count 669 was an illegal shot after his foul. So what? Now we call it a 668? Ah, but every shot in the 669 was after a shot where a ball was illegally pocketed.
Even certifying any part of the 669 is full of nettles because a player can't make a legal shot behind an illegal shot in his inning. There had to be a new count started with a legal shot for any of the 669 to be valid. I don't like it but I really believe that every single shot of that fantastic run was invalid.
Hu
soyale
Well-known member
im not saying it matters one way or the other. But after he fouled, the rest of the rack doesnt count right? So 44 ball run and then he knocks a few around for fun, and then on the next rack proceeds to break the world record.
whats the difference between the beginning of that rack and his opening break shot? that he didnt place the cue ball with his hand?
again, it doesnt matter, like AT ALL. but i fail to see how you can dispute this.
Unless there is a written rule set that covers any of this, your argument is invalid.
As no one can just pick and choose which rules they want. Like saying “if he was in a match, then he would have sat down.”
Well this isn’t a match.
Also, unless there is a rule stating they can only certify what was submitted, your argument there is invalid as well.
Is there a rule for record runs that say you can’t start in the middle of a rack?
Unless you have the rules to reference, your arguments are actually what is invalid.
Some people don’t consider Barry Bonds’ home run record legit. But, the MLB does. That’s all that counts.
If the BCA says the record is X and is by Y player, well, that’s the record.
Well then, explain how he cheated, do tell!
Then do tell, explain how he cheated!!
He had the racker rack high so he could hit the break ball and another
time he did not like the rack and racked it himself. You either did not watch
or you are blind.
In a high run competition with only the one competitor, what are the RULES about WHO can rack? Can you produce the video clip showing how the rack was racked to high up?
Don't worry, its being worked on, but it won't be streamed for free, the free viewers are like a pack of bitches in heat, not worth having them!!
wonder whatever happened to that?
Is that the best you can do? What a joke!
I am not sure you are clever enough to understand. Straight up cheating on tape, just what other evidence would you be referring to?
Uh.. the rack being an inch high so he could see his break shot. Complete bullshit. I saw him pick up the cue ball and bring it into the kitchen before anyone checked the rack. John just decided to do it on his own because he had no break shot otherwise. That is just what I saw, could be others. Once makes him a cheater, twice makes him irrelevant.
see my later post, it is all explained for people for people like you.
- Status