Me personally, I don't care what the rules say or all this excuse making. Everyone in the place knows what Mike was shooting. De Luna, be a man. You know what he was shooting. Anyone have integrity anymore? No. It's just do whatever with no shame if it benefits me. I'm going to go look for my Q36 Explosive Space Modulator to blow up the Earth.
Mika V De Luna Controversy....
- Thread starter edwu
- Start date
My question wasn't as rhetorical as yours. Thanks for wasting the time though.
Honestly, pool needs more of this. I am so tired of people that promote the sport trying to hide the things they deem "unappealing" about the game. Poker exploded because it leaned into those things and highlighted the personalities involved. Acting like these guys are only the most sophisticated descendants of royalty is more off-putting than anything else. Go to YouTube and look at view counts on "Road Stories" type of videos, people want to hear about those things and the people involved. I truly feel like pool is on the precipice of another growth period and mainstream relevance, but trying to present it as this formal game is not doing it any favors.
I totally agree with this. But the issue here is that Mika (and Earl and others) look like whiny babies and not adults dealing with trouble on the road. In the NFL or NBA (or WNBA), Mika and/or De Luna would have been popped in the mouth for their behavior.
I can agree with that. I was speaking more broadly about the "controversy" as a sales tactic side of things. I was more embarrassed by the announcers acting like Mika should have been arrested, or that his behavior somehow gave his performance a black-eye, than I was about what transpired between the players. Like it or not, human psychology is naturally attracted to controversy and this is easily going to be the most talked about event prior to the round of 32 and maybe the whole event.
Extrapolating that Mika is somehow a horrible human being because of how he handles himself around a pool table is a horrible take. Can he get whiny around the table at times? Yes. Okay.
I think Mika thinks DeLuna initiated the call and tried to take advantage of the situation. So I totally understand his response and don't have a problem with it in light of how DeLuna was acting during other moments in the match. The constant movement while Mika was at the table was clear. It sounds like DeLuna is getting a reputation for this type of behavior. That's not a reputation that Mika shares, however off-putting his other antics may be.
Even if Mika got who initiated the call wrong, it was clear that DeLuna was itching to take advantage of the situation. Mika stood his ground which I actually commend.
I think Mika thinks DeLuna initiated the call and tried to take advantage of the situation. So I totally understand his response and don't have a problem with it in light of how DeLuna was acting during other moments in the match. The constant movement while Mika was at the table was clear. It sounds like DeLuna is getting a reputation for this type of behavior. That's not a reputation that Mika shares, however off-putting his other antics may be.
Even if Mika got who initiated the call wrong, it was clear that DeLuna was itching to take advantage of the situation. Mika stood his ground which I actually commend.
Call shot is pointless at the pro level. All it does is take away the potential for exciting two-way shots and create the possibility for controversies like this one, in exchange for not rewarding players on the extremely rare occasions they make a ball on accident. Not a good trade.
...and I guess commentators are never wrong...
yeah, no.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Damn, had I known I'd put up with the subpar pool and watch em play.
This isn't about Mika imo.
Whether the ref heard it or not, he was clearly playing the 9ball.
There is ZERO % chance I would have taken bih there if I was playing him.
I am not playing for food money and I have integrity. I would not want to win that way.
"Thems the rules" is a cowardly way to take advantage of a situation without accountability.
Yes, I have stopped my opponent from shooting the wrong ball in a money game.
I don't care if it's $60, or $60,000, I'm not pulling that crap.
I would have said, "keep shooting" from my chair.
Calling every obvious shot is a stupid rule imo.
IMO. Not looking to argue.
Fawk the "all ball fouls" nit picking that if your arm hair touches the top of a ball, it's bih for your opponent, BS too.
No affect on the game, just a silly rule to have another rule.
It's basically a seat belt ticket for no fawking reason.
Not looking to argue, so don't quote me.
Just stating my opinion.
Now I'm drinking rum.
Whether the ref heard it or not, he was clearly playing the 9ball.
There is ZERO % chance I would have taken bih there if I was playing him.
I am not playing for food money and I have integrity. I would not want to win that way.
"Thems the rules" is a cowardly way to take advantage of a situation without accountability.
Yes, I have stopped my opponent from shooting the wrong ball in a money game.
I don't care if it's $60, or $60,000, I'm not pulling that crap.
I would have said, "keep shooting" from my chair.
Calling every obvious shot is a stupid rule imo.
IMO. Not looking to argue.
Fawk the "all ball fouls" nit picking that if your arm hair touches the top of a ball, it's bih for your opponent, BS too.
No affect on the game, just a silly rule to have another rule.
It's basically a seat belt ticket for no fawking reason.
Not looking to argue, so don't quote me.
Just stating my opinion.
Now I'm drinking rum.
Regarding the rules, CSI is incredibly explicit about this.
But this isn't governed by CSI rules, it's a WPA event governed by world standardized rules. These rules are far less explicit and significantly more lax.
It does say the shooter "should" call the shot "if there is any chance of confusion". This is very soft wording. It acts more like guidance. If Mika had called it clearly and audibly, there's no confusion. But it doesn't mean he must call it. It doesn't mean it's mandatory. It didn't use the word "must". If the ref is satisfied with the intention of the shot, it doesn't need to be called. A kick, combo, or carom may be considered obvious under WPA as long as the referee is satisfied.
So this begs the question. Was the ref satisfied that the intended ball was made? Perhaps not because he called foul (which wasn't the right term anyway). But was he not satisfied because he was unclear of Mika's intentions? Or was he not satisfied because he was operating under the interpretation that calling the combo was mandatory? I assume the latter. Because if it was just that he was unsure of the shot to be played, why didn't he ask for a call like the rules indicate he has prerogative to do? And I doubt he actually was unsure of Mika's intentions because the shot actually was obvious. So much so that the commentators called what it was before Mika shot it. If the ref really was unsure of Mika's intentions then I would posit he's an inept ref. But to give the ref the benefit of the doubt, I think it's more likely he was applying CSI (amateur) rules to a WPA (pro) event. Which may also be a form of ineptitude but much more reasonable why that could occur.
But this isn't governed by CSI rules, it's a WPA event governed by world standardized rules. These rules are far less explicit and significantly more lax.
It does say the shooter "should" call the shot "if there is any chance of confusion". This is very soft wording. It acts more like guidance. If Mika had called it clearly and audibly, there's no confusion. But it doesn't mean he must call it. It doesn't mean it's mandatory. It didn't use the word "must". If the ref is satisfied with the intention of the shot, it doesn't need to be called. A kick, combo, or carom may be considered obvious under WPA as long as the referee is satisfied.
So this begs the question. Was the ref satisfied that the intended ball was made? Perhaps not because he called foul (which wasn't the right term anyway). But was he not satisfied because he was unclear of Mika's intentions? Or was he not satisfied because he was operating under the interpretation that calling the combo was mandatory? I assume the latter. Because if it was just that he was unsure of the shot to be played, why didn't he ask for a call like the rules indicate he has prerogative to do? And I doubt he actually was unsure of Mika's intentions because the shot actually was obvious. So much so that the commentators called what it was before Mika shot it. If the ref really was unsure of Mika's intentions then I would posit he's an inept ref. But to give the ref the benefit of the doubt, I think it's more likely he was applying CSI (amateur) rules to a WPA (pro) event. Which may also be a form of ineptitude but much more reasonable why that could occur.
Last edited:
You can still call a shot and play safe. WPA rules don't kill the 2way the way call-shot/call-safe does.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
By Ron Artest back in the day maybe. NBA is all a buncha guaranteed contract millionaire buddies hanging out playing no D till the playoffs. Intensity level is like a pennies poker game at your grandma's kitchen table. Earl would whoop those NBA babies into shape. Show em what fire in the eye looks like in months outside april to june.
Much ado about nothing here. There will always be the occasional disagreement in call shot games. It has always been this way. Such incidents aren't that common.
I don't really have a problem with how either player conducted himself. DeLuna reacted to the obviously ridiculous referee call. Mika was rightly upset and showed it. The referee error was corrected.
Their track records, of which I'm well aware, are not relevant. Abiding by a referee's decision is not a move, for it is not the obligation of the player in the chair to even watch while opponent shoots in a refereed match.
It's all good in the eyes of this fan and only the referee has any culpability on this occasion.
I don't really have a problem with how either player conducted himself. DeLuna reacted to the obviously ridiculous referee call. Mika was rightly upset and showed it. The referee error was corrected.
Their track records, of which I'm well aware, are not relevant. Abiding by a referee's decision is not a move, for it is not the obligation of the player in the chair to even watch while opponent shoots in a refereed match.
It's all good in the eyes of this fan and only the referee has any culpability on this occasion.
true. but mika is more known for being a crybaby than a cheat. deluna is an habitual shark and poor sportsman. mika was out of order with his behavior after the ref review, but deluna was also sharking earlier in the match so this was built up tension/bad blood.