Spectator areas are good. Seating is pretty limited on the stream tables, but there is sufficient seating at all other tables. The primary arena won’t be in use until the final day, but it looks fantastic and seating will likely be ample.
US Open 9-Ball, 2023, Atlantic City, Sep 25-30
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
I'm fine with the tight pockets, but I sure wish they'd feature better matchups on the streaming tables than they had today. Ralf / Earl and Chang / Raga were great, but there were players on Tables 1 and 2 with Fargo ratings in the bleeping 400's! Do we really need to see Shaw and Shane and Gorst and Sky toy with players who offer no competition at all?
Hopefully tomorrow will be better once the amateurs get off the stage, but still, you've got to wonder how those table assignments were chosen.
Hopefully tomorrow will be better once the amateurs get off the stage, but still, you've got to wonder how those table assignments were chosen.
Spanish Open pockets were brutal. Wet weather 4 inch pockets.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Some of the shots that went down there though... must have just been those at the top of their game making them look like buckets
So far this production has been well below the standard set at the Spanish open and European open. Karl's new partner...? Why stream any match with a player below 600 Fargo?
I am below 600 Fargo, had Morra down 2-1 in DCC One Pocket the year he won the Banks, and put a 5 pack on Joey Gray in the 9 ball that year as well.
Might want to adjust that range a bit.
yea, i would rather see a close match between two 750's than gorst playing a banger. i'm ok with the first match featuring last years winner but other than that, for first round matches, pick exciting matches and preferably fast players. today will be better and also now the players will have had practice tables, which i understand has been the biggest complaint
apparently scott frost was running out on hill-hill when his opponent hunter lombardo called a shirt foul on the 6-ball. hunter got bih and won..
The match score shown in the brackets is 8-6.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Yeah, that was some pub/bar-level nonsense... both the incident, and how it was dealt with for the most part.
If they're that content to make it a big deal, and there's no proof. Run the rack over again.
Credit to Frost for not getting too deep into it. Took it on the chin like a pro.
I tried to listen to some of the Karl/Steve matches, but I just couldn't. I had to turn the sound off.
not sure what's correct. either way, nitty move
Who is Steve? I have not been able to devote all my attention to it this week because of my job. I'm catching bits and pieces. I saw the Ralf. v. Earl match, and I liked Jeremy Jones in the booth. The other guy, Mike McMullen, needs to remember this is USA territory. Stop ragging on the Americans.
Thanks for the video. It's a tough break for Scott. But the rules are the rules. It's happened to my other half, and my other half has called foul on his opponents in the past.
The ref came to the table after the so-called foul. In a professional event, you can't argue with the ref, and when she and Scott engaged in a back-and-forth, it should not have been that long.
One thing for sure, whatever the railbirds have to say shouldn't have been been listened to. That was ridiculous to hear the railbirds chirping.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
That was the issue I had watching the clip online, the influence of the 'railbirds'(which I assume is what hat Scott chatting for a while - not the contention of the foul itself, as mentioned I think he did better than I would have dealing with it). Two players at a professional event, with a professional referee, all should act professionally.
That was despicable! I believe the woman was wrong in so many ways. Hunter was wrong too!
First; For this Referee to listen to a spectator's opinion was wrong.
A spectator or a group of spectators just might have a horse in the race. She would have no way of knowing. Their opinions are irrelevant and must be ignored.
Second, She said the foul could not have been anticipated, or something like that.
Wrong again! With Scott leaning over the six ball Hunter would have to know the potential for a touch foul was there. That was what he was watching for! Right?!
Third, It is Hunter's obligation to call a ref to the the table so an objective call can be made when the situation is that close.
He didn't do that. The shooting player is typically given the benefit of the doubt in situations like this. Not the other way around! In all my fifty plus years of play it has always been the obligation for the sitting player to call in a ref when a close call is anticipated. Had he done this we would not be having this discussion.
Kudo's to Scott! He kept his cool throughout the ordeal, though in my opinion he was right that the ruling was wrong. His shirt may well have touched the six ball. That is not the issue, though many of you may think it so. When referees are present it is the sitting player's responsibility to call in a ref before his opponent attempts his shot. He failed to do that, and that is the issue, or should have been. The ruling will forever be in doubt!
Tom
First; For this Referee to listen to a spectator's opinion was wrong.
A spectator or a group of spectators just might have a horse in the race. She would have no way of knowing. Their opinions are irrelevant and must be ignored.
Second, She said the foul could not have been anticipated, or something like that.
Wrong again! With Scott leaning over the six ball Hunter would have to know the potential for a touch foul was there. That was what he was watching for! Right?!
Third, It is Hunter's obligation to call a ref to the the table so an objective call can be made when the situation is that close.
He didn't do that. The shooting player is typically given the benefit of the doubt in situations like this. Not the other way around! In all my fifty plus years of play it has always been the obligation for the sitting player to call in a ref when a close call is anticipated. Had he done this we would not be having this discussion.
Kudo's to Scott! He kept his cool throughout the ordeal, though in my opinion he was right that the ruling was wrong. His shirt may well have touched the six ball. That is not the issue, though many of you may think it so. When referees are present it is the sitting player's responsibility to call in a ref before his opponent attempts his shot. He failed to do that, and that is the issue, or should have been. The ruling will forever be in doubt!
Tom
Last edited:
Bingo! Perfectly said.
Then every non shooting player should just call a shirt foul when their opponent is about to run out. Or here Scott could have called one when Hunter returned to the table.
hunter had ample time to call a ref. scott even got up from the shot once before to tuck his shirt in.