This memorable match from Accu-Stats was just released on YouTube:
There is a rules controversy around 56 minutes in.
There is a rules controversy around 56 minutes in.
Efren plays Dallas, 2000 US Open 14.1
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Gotta agree with Bill Staton, because it has happened to all of us. Sometimes the balls are just not on your side.
Still, fun little match. And I wouldn't call that a controversy at all. More like him calling a foul because he knows the game a hell of a lot more than his opponent.
Still, fun little match. And I wouldn't call that a controversy at all. More like him calling a foul because he knows the game a hell of a lot more than his opponent.
What was the correct rule at that time? Right now, it is not the way it was called. Dallas would be wrong now.
Interesting you say that because Bill Stanton and the other commentator were talking about which set of rules should be used for this foul? The old ones or the new ones. I'm pretty sure they went with the old one.
Mr West would have liked his first shot back for sure.
I was surprised he hit it soft
Since this was an official, sanctioned, BCA US Open 14.1, I'd say they were duty bound to use the then-current set of rules. But maybe they didn't.
reyes played a very inspired game in this event. unfortunately for him, so did ralf. there was also a taiwanese straight pool player who made it to the final (don't remember the name because he was fairly unknown before and after, but allegedly a 400 ball runner)
Ralf beat Min-Wai Chin 150-95 in the finals.
Bob J. Howdy;
As you probably have a copy of the rules that were in effect on a shelf in your pool library
would you mind haveing a look-see and help us remove the angst from our minds. Really.chucklin'
hank
I would not want you to suffer through the New Year drowning in angst and uncertainty....
In 1978 the BCA rules -- effectively the world rules at the time -- said (on page 62) that if the player touched the cue ball with any part of the cue stick other than the tip it was an automatic 15 point penalty and an opening break was required. Note that it was not a 16-point penalty and it did not specify whether the contact was accidental or intentional.
By 1982 (four years later) the rules had undergone a major revision. In the general rules we see #21 (page 44) Special Intentional Foul Penalty. That says in part that if the cue ball is struck with the ferrule intentionally, it is a standard foul but the referee must warn the player that if he does it again he will lose the match by forfeit. There is no rerack or 15-point penalty mentioned.
In addition in the 1982 rule book, there is an added rule that if the player intentionally interferes with a ball travelling towards a pocket or towards the rack area, he is charged with a special "deliberate foul" and a 16-point penalty. The opponent has a choice of balls-in-position or forcing a new opening break. (This rule has nothing to do with Efren's ferrule foul.)
In the 2000 rule book, the rules were the same as in 1982. The forfeiture after a warning for ferrule fouling was by then general rule 3.29 on page 59, and the catching-the-ball foul was rule 6.7 (5) in the straight pool rules (page 73).
It appears that the rule enforced in the 2000 US Open 14.1 had never been an official rule.
Last edited:
Positively Ralf said:
... Still, a fun little match. And I wouldn't call that a controversy at all. More like him [Dallas] calling a foul because he knows the game a hell of a lot more than his opponent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the correct rule at that time? Right now, it is not the way it was called. Dallas would be wrong now.
Bob Jewett
=======================================================
My reaction -- then and now -- to the controversy remains the same:
Dallas knew the game at that moment, but he didn't know enough about the rule set covering this situation that was still governing (and enforceable) in year 2000. Nor did the ref, tournament directors and most of the spectators.
____________________________
. . . if the cue ball is struck with the ferrule intentionally, it is a standard foul but the referee must warn the player that if he does it again he will lose the match by forfeit. There is no rerack or 15-point penalty mentioned.
_____________________________
The ref was obliged to warn Efren, but didn't know enough to do so.
I was present for this 2000 match and -- having directed a number of local 14.1 tournaments -- knew about the "warning" requirement. I later regretted being too hesitant about inserting myself into these escalatingly controversial and totally confused moments of halted play.
Johnny Ervolino was sitting next to me and I whispered my opinion on the matter. He said that I may be right, but the directors surely had the rule book nearby and would make the right call -- and their call would be final.
Too many confused cooks among the officials that day.
Arnaldo ~ With that perfect red carpet and the high rows of acutely-pitched (easy full-view spectating) rows of seating that Blatt Billiards rented and shipped-in from a London-based company, it was the most comfortable, esthetically beautiful US Open 14.1 I've ever attended. I was there for every day of the event from morning to all evening. Souquet's 120-and-out in his semi against Efren was pure perfection.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
... Still, a fun little match. And I wouldn't call that a controversy at all. More like him [Dallas] calling a foul because he knows the game a hell of a lot more than his opponent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the correct rule at that time? Right now, it is not the way it was called. Dallas would be wrong now.
Bob Jewett
=======================================================
My reaction -- then and now -- to the controversy remains the same:
Dallas knew the game at that moment, but he didn't know enough about the rule set covering this situation that was still governing (and enforceable) in year 2000. Nor did the ref, tournament directors and most of the spectators.
____________________________
. . . if the cue ball is struck with the ferrule intentionally, it is a standard foul but the referee must warn the player that if he does it again he will lose the match by forfeit. There is no rerack or 15-point penalty mentioned.
_____________________________
The ref was obliged to warn Efren, but didn't know enough to do so.
I was present for this 2000 match and -- having directed a number of local 14.1 tournaments -- knew about the "warning" requirement. I later regretted being too hesitant about inserting myself into these escalatingly controversial and totally confused moments of halted play.
Johnny Ervolino was sitting next to me and I whispered my opinion on the matter. He said that I may be right, but the directors surely had the rule book nearby and would make the right call -- and their call would be final.
Too many confused cooks among the officials that day.
Arnaldo ~ With that perfect red carpet and the high rows of acutely-pitched (easy full-view spectating) rows of seating that Blatt Billiards rented and shipped-in from a London-based company, it was the most comfortable, esthetically beautiful US Open 14.1 I've ever attended. I was there for every day of the event from morning to all evening. Souquet's 120-and-out in his semi against Efren was pure perfection.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Last edited:
It's hard to find good help. In my experience, it is the rare tournament director who has actually read the current rules. And in that tournament, there was perhaps no player who knew that rule.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Wow, I've never seen Efren play 14.1 before. It really shows his genius.