Hunter v Frost, your stance?

u12armresl said:
So if (and I am not sure that is the case here, but play along) Hunter saw the foul and called it, it would be nitty?
Click to expand...
Some things are more important than winning or losing a US Open match, and for myself, a person’s integrity is one of them.

I would like to think I would not have called a foul on my opponent in that situation, but as I wasn’t, I can’t say for certainty what I would have done.

There is no doubt that as a result of this incident, Frost has gained a whole lot more respect in our (admittedly tiny) pool world, whereas just the opposite for Hunter.
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
I'd wager it has more to do with big brother watching.
Click to expand...
In a society that feels infinitely safer than living in a LOT of places in America. I will take the tradeoff. If America had stretchs of road all over the country where it was perfectly legal to drive 100mph+, the fatality rate would skyrocket, as American drivers are arseholes.

There's a REASON that Germans are encouraged to follow speed limits, and they know it. Infinitely more dangerous over here to be exceeding speed limits on the autobahn in the spots they are actually applied.
 
So many times, the ref acknowledges they did not see the shot!

They acknowledge that their view was obscured.

Making a call is not a guessing game! You MUST visually see the situation! The 'I heard a double click sound' is not grounds for calling a foul. You truly must witness it......

Kd



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
I watched the video linked above. The thing that stands out to me is how Hunter even saw the foul? It looks like Scott turned around 180 degrees when he was addressing Hunter, which would imply Hunter was behind Scott.

Unless there is another video, that view is useless to see if there was a foul.

Anyway, I'm a proponent of cue ball fouls only if no referee for each shot. If you get a guy with less than ideal ethics, he can call a foul on the shooter anytime the shooter leans over and there are balls near his shirt. Its too much power to the opponent.
 
seems the rule should be to have a ref called over to watch the shot if he was hoping for a foul. he was beaten, barring some miracle, and he knew it.

if scott did touch the ball then it is a foul, but i wouldnt be very happy to win a match this way. However rules are rules and if the sitting player acts as ref under these rules then scott is shit out of luck in this situation.
 
IMG_0341.jpeg


Yes, the ref was right that the seated player performs the duties of the ref. Lots of people on social media saying they’d never heard of that. But it’s the second part that should have come into play: When there’s a dispute like this, it should be assumed that no foul occurred.

Lots of people on social media saying that it’s obvious that the seated player can’t call a foul like this because you could call any foul. But the opposite problem could occur too. Say your cue ball doesn’t hit a rail, and it’s not that close, say, it’s half a ball from the rail. Or you obviously hit the wrong ball first. The seated player calls a foul, but the player at the table just stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, and gets to keep shooting because of the above rule. In the end, sportsmanship and honesty are needed either way.
 
soyale said:
seems the rule should be to have a ref called over to watch the shot if he was hoping for a foul. he was beaten, barring some miracle, and he knew it.

if scott did touch the ball then it is a foul, but i wouldnt be very happy to win a match this way. However rules are rules and if the sitting player acts as ref under these rules then scott is shit out of luck in this situation.
Click to expand...
You are ascribing motivation to Hunter's call, that you really have no basis for. It's possible that Scott simply fouled the ball. I personally don't have a problem with spectators being consulted as to whether a shot was a foul or not. I am an American living in Germany, and to be blunt, the Euros tend to be a little bit more stringent about playing a "clean" game, than Americans.

I know Hunter, he is a solid dude. Much more upstanding fellow than Scott, in my experience, and I have played tournament matches against both. Scott was very much a sore loser type when he thought he might lose to me.
 
u12armresl said:
It seems like a few posters think that rules aren't hard rules. 51 over isn't worth a ticket, I mean yes it's a rule, but let me be the judge of at what point it is enforced?
Click to expand...

Enforcement of any rule is cultural, so then the relevant question here is what is the culture?

If both the rule is violated and the intent of the rule is demonstrated then no one usually argues with enforcement - the intent of the “all ball foul” rule is to prevent disruption of object balls. We’re not having this discussion of Frost bumps the 6 ball over even a few inches.

But if the rule is violated, and the intent of the rule is NOT demonstrated, then it becomes a fun exercise.

I would argue that in American culture, we usually require both the violation of the rule and violation of the intent of the rule to be present before we enforce. This is why the controversy shows up in either this case or SVB vs. Archer - American culture largely dictates we blow this off if there is no tangible impact on the game.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Some things are more important than winning or losing a US Open match, and for myself, a person’s integrity is one of them.

I would like to think I would not have called a foul on my opponent in that situation, but as I wasn’t, I can’t say for certainty what I would have done.

There is no doubt that as a result of this incident, Frost has gained a whole lot more respect in our (admittedly tiny) pool world, whereas just the opposite for Hunter.
Click to expand...
Where is the lack of integrity at if you call a foul? You don't like the speed limit rule, are you also a proponent of don't get charged in California if you steal $950 or under?
 
ShortBusRuss said:
Funnily enough, here in Germany, there are a lot of speed cameras that get set up in random places to "catch" people speeding (in areas where it is not really a safety issue so much..). Americans hate them, and Germans by and large, accept that they were 100% speeding if the speed camera caught them, and just pay the fine and go about their lives, and don't consider it a big deal. This is a cultural difference between Germans and Americans. A lot of Americans are self-entitled, when it comes to following rules.
Click to expand...
To be fair, a lot of the speeding rules are very subjective here in the states (depending on where you are). I just fought a ticket (successfully) where I was caught on camera going 10mph over the posted speed. Our speeding statute is "driving at a speed not reasonable or prudent". I convinced the judge that my speed at that time did not meet the criteria in the law. I was right, and justice prevailed! :D
 
easy-e said:
To be fair, a lot of the speeding rules are very subjective here in the states (depending on where you are). I just fought a ticket (successfully) where I was caught on camera going 10mph over the posted speed. Our speeding statute is "driving at a speed not reasonable or prudent". I convinced the judge that my speed at that time did not meet the criteria in the law. I was right, and justice prevailed! :D
Click to expand...
Mmm hmmmm. Still safer driving in Germany, even when you got cars going 100+. There are certain downsides to allowing flexibility to certain rules.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Some things are more important than winning or losing a US Open match, and for myself, a person’s integrity is one of them.

I would like to think I would not have called a foul on my opponent in that situation, but as I wasn’t, I can’t say for certainty what I would have done.

There is no doubt that as a result of this incident, Frost has gained a whole lot more respect in our (admittedly tiny) pool world, whereas just the opposite for Hunter.
Click to expand...
This is crazy. No integrity violation for following rules, I'd argue the opposite. I actually respect Hunter more after this. I always thought he was kind of a "P-word", now I think he's got a big set on him!
 
easy-e said:
This is crazy. No integrity violation for following rules, I'd argue the opposite. I actually respect Hunter more after this. I always thought he was kind of a "P-word", now I think he's got a big set on him!
Click to expand...
Seems to me like he was white knighting.
 
easy-e said:
Pros and cons for sure. That's what judges are for.
Click to expand...
After having lived in Germany for 7 years, I have zero faith in the American justice system, and that applies to both law enforcement, and the legal system itself.

The law in Germany is enforced in an effort to support a law-abiding society. In America, it is often enforced as a means of producing revenue. Or building someone's political career.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
After having lived in Germany for 7 years, I have zero faith in the American justice system, and that applies to both law enforcement, and the legal system itself.

The law in Germany is enforced in an effort to support a law-abiding society. In America, it is often enforced as a means of producing revenue. Or building someone's political career.
Click to expand...

There may have been a minor kurfluffle in that region in the late 30’s, early 40’s that led to a few changes, on par with that US domestic violence skirmish in the early 1860’s.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
After having lived in Germany for 7 years, I have zero faith in the American justice system, and that applies to both law enforcement, and the legal system itself.

The law in Germany is enforced in an effort to support a law-abiding society. In America, it is often enforced as a means of producing revenue. Or building someone's political career.
Click to expand...
No argument there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top