when did you correct anyone in this thread before lol or everyone as you say
Hunter v Frost, your stance?
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
I haven't seen him enter a tournament in AZ in probably three years, and before that I can't remember the last one I even heard of him entering. There aren't many tournaments to play in once your fargo goes over 625. He is the 2nd best player in AZ, I wish he'd get out and play more!
Wow, this thread really went off the rails. Hooray for AZB! Now for a little history. When Straight Pool was THE game in all the major pool competitions it was always played with all ball fouls! Of course they had refs at all the tables, I being one of them in several major West Coast events in the 1970's. I was a young'un back then and not really into Straight Pool, but I wanted the job so I studied the rules and got counseled by some of the veteran refs and players. I wanted to do a good job. I watched carefully as players got down to shoot and made sure I could see if anything touched any object balls while they were shooting. What I remember from that era was that the players would hike up their sleeve if they were shooting over balls, taking care not to touch anything. They would also look down as they got into their stance for the same reason. In other words they were very careful not to foul! I don't remember every calling a 'touch' foul on anyone.
Interestingly enough when the first major 9-Ball and One Pocket tournaments began in the 1960's (Johnston City and the Stardust) they played by the same rules, fouls on all balls. Pros of that era accepted it, even if many of them played cue ball fouls only when gambling. Most of them had played in Straight Pool events as well and knew how to navigate the table with those rules. So this was an era when cue ball fouls only was basically something we all played in poolroom/gambling games, myself included. But not in tournaments!
Even though most of my life when playing pool (always for money back then) I played cue ball fouls only, I truly believe that fouls on all balls is the correct way to play pool. Using these rules ends all discussions about whether a ball moved or not, or if a touched ball affected the outcome of the shot in any way. If you touch or move a ball when shooting it is a foul, plain and simple. No discussion necessary! The real problem being what if your shirt sleeve or hair barely touches a ball when you are down shooting. That can present a problem as we all know. Once again I will harken back to my days as a Straight Pool ref and player in the Stardust events. We knew the rules we were playing by and made sure not to contact any object balls when shooting, either by using the bridge or switching hands, or simply chosing to shoot a shot in a different way. Being careful when shooting over balls was our own responsibility, and players accepted this and acted accordingly. There were very few such fouls called in all the tournaments I attended.
One last thing I will add to my comments is that for many years I worked as a co-TD at the U.S. Open with Ken Shuman and Bill Stock as my co referees. We rarely if ever had any problems with players over our calls on close shots because we all knew what we were doing out there. Players knew to call one of us over to watch a close shot, so they didn't need to make the call. I'm not saying we never had a problem, but it was rare.
Thank you for indulging me by reading this.
Interestingly enough when the first major 9-Ball and One Pocket tournaments began in the 1960's (Johnston City and the Stardust) they played by the same rules, fouls on all balls. Pros of that era accepted it, even if many of them played cue ball fouls only when gambling. Most of them had played in Straight Pool events as well and knew how to navigate the table with those rules. So this was an era when cue ball fouls only was basically something we all played in poolroom/gambling games, myself included. But not in tournaments!
Even though most of my life when playing pool (always for money back then) I played cue ball fouls only, I truly believe that fouls on all balls is the correct way to play pool. Using these rules ends all discussions about whether a ball moved or not, or if a touched ball affected the outcome of the shot in any way. If you touch or move a ball when shooting it is a foul, plain and simple. No discussion necessary! The real problem being what if your shirt sleeve or hair barely touches a ball when you are down shooting. That can present a problem as we all know. Once again I will harken back to my days as a Straight Pool ref and player in the Stardust events. We knew the rules we were playing by and made sure not to contact any object balls when shooting, either by using the bridge or switching hands, or simply chosing to shoot a shot in a different way. Being careful when shooting over balls was our own responsibility, and players accepted this and acted accordingly. There were very few such fouls called in all the tournaments I attended.
One last thing I will add to my comments is that for many years I worked as a co-TD at the U.S. Open with Ken Shuman and Bill Stock as my co referees. We rarely if ever had any problems with players over our calls on close shots because we all knew what we were doing out there. Players knew to call one of us over to watch a close shot, so they didn't need to make the call. I'm not saying we never had a problem, but it was rare.
Thank you for indulging me by reading this.
Last edited:
read the thread if you want examples. I have yet to read a break down of events by anyone that actually details the facts as I personally saw them. I also have no bias toward either player, or ref/MR for that matter.
I think many are mistaken about what they saw. A dark room, a black shirt, lighting from directly over the table, a wide body, the table rails. While many could see the apparent overlap, few if any could see any actual contact.
As a pretty serious photographer and with a lot of experience writing reports I proved that the witness, a police officer, couldn't have seen what they claimed. The officer saw literally a second or two after the infraction and less than twenty feet from where it occurred. We all knew the person was guilty but the officer was mistaken about what he saw. Case dismissed!
In Scott's case with shirt and belly lapping all around the six we all confidently say it is touching but not one of us can see that for a fact. My opinion, Scott is twice guilty. I think Scott bends over about thirty seconds into the video. Scott's body language indicates he feels a ball under his belly when he resets then.
Bad call against Scott. Not because he didn't foul but because it was unproven.
Hu
As a pretty serious photographer and with a lot of experience writing reports I proved that the witness, a police officer, couldn't have seen what they claimed. The officer saw literally a second or two after the infraction and less than twenty feet from where it occurred. We all knew the person was guilty but the officer was mistaken about what he saw. Case dismissed!
In Scott's case with shirt and belly lapping all around the six we all confidently say it is touching but not one of us can see that for a fact. My opinion, Scott is twice guilty. I think Scott bends over about thirty seconds into the video. Scott's body language indicates he feels a ball under his belly when he resets then.
Bad call against Scott. Not because he didn't foul but because it was unproven.
Hu
I'm not, and I used to care about defending what I shouldn't have to...lol
Splitting hairs... If a shirts folds over the ball during contact. You technically can't see the contact anymore. So does that mean the fallen tree alone in the forest didn't make a sound...?
Arguing the moot for sake of developing an argument.
So the stance here is if I happened to blink the first moment the shirt touched the ball, then remaining obvious contact after my blink doesn't translate to actual contact because the portion of the shirt I'm now viewing isn't in contact of the ball...?
You guys win...lol. I'm done. From this moment forward, I wasn't there.
I wasn't pointing a finger at you or another guy playing at the next table. People eight or ten feet up in the bleachers would have to have x-ray vision to see through Scott as would a lot of people that didn't have ideal angles in front of and behind him. The call turned into a popularity contest and Scott will win few of those.
I have listened to hundreds of stories of auto accidents. Often while nobody was lying it was impossible for everyone to be correct. The same happens anytime multiple people see any incident. I feel sure Scott fouled with his belly, something he could feel. I could never be a witness, I couldn't see through Scott either!
Hu
No problem... Out of respect for you I'll comment on the rest of your post to add clarity.
The worst angle would have been the one guy standing beside me that was chirping with Scott. I could see it, so I don't doubt the guy. The other two spectators with a voice were sitting in low chairs, first row, along the long rail, <10ft away with their eye level being inches higher than the table rails. To the best of my knowledge, they said nothing until the ref asked them.
Not even remotely close. The ref, despite what many within this thread have stated, followed the rules to the letter. She deserves an extreme amount of credit for not allowing Scott to bully her out of the situation. In the end, Scott awarded Hunter the BIH. The ref did not. She was about to leave and bring over the TD. Once it got to that point, Scott knew he wasn't going to win so he gave it up.
I was just going by the picture of the supposed spectator. They were standing at a right angle to Scott and at the top of the first little set of stands when the picture was taken. My experience with spectators pitching in isn't good. I see that was a competent ref. She could still make a mistake but not as likely as if somebody's neighbor had been roped in at the last minute. Somebody wanted me to judge a baby beauty contest once when I was in business. One proud mom, forty-nine wanting to lynch me! Not no but hell no. I dodge calling shots in pool too. Maybe I will tell them best two out of three next time!
Or maybe I will do like an old cajun. The balls were very close. The man shot, Renaye hollered "To" and quickly sat down. "What do you mean to, good hit or bad?"
Renaye looked at the two big men in his face wanting a decision, "too damned close for me to call, yeah."
Hu
this tournament was all ball fouls.My understanding is that it is not a foul if you touch the ball and give the player the option to leave it or move it back!
Additionally, the ref is obligated to position himself in a place to make the call. The fact that the player was seated behind the shooter and had no way to make the call and never escalated it to a designated ref!
Given, the money difference between winner and loser of that match! FROZEN was robbed....
Kd
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
....Pool artist
Member
I go with frost he consistent yes he never one any big us tournament pro.but had to give frost the edge nice guy too hoa 1 pocket game is solid yes my dad can't beat hime easily then again my dad is a hustler.but Lombardo is good but not the same shooter as frost
never m
ind the guy. he's some unhinged US hating wingnut.
No, not calling him a liar. Him and I are actually good friends and we were both there. We both just saw different things. I don't see how Hunter could see it to be honest, but maybe he did. Either way, crowd was the issue, not Hunter.
And the Ref saying "Player in chair acts as ref" is a whole nother stupid issue
My thoughts exactly.
That is literally right there in the WPA rules. What she missed is that it later says that if there is a conflict, and the ref can’t decide either way, the ruling goes to the shooter.And the Ref saying "Player in chair acts as ref" is a whole nother stupid issue
Agreed. But it also means she read into it too much. It’s clearly not intended to mean the seated player has the full authority of a ref. She botched the concept entirely.
Yeah, it’s just been kinda driving me crazy that 90% of people on the internet are quoting her as saying that, and then acting like it’s the most ridiculous thing they’ve ever heard, when what she said is in the WPA rules almost verbatim. It’s the next part - if there’s a disagreement and the ref has no other evidence then there is no foul - that she got wrong.
It would be much better if it didn’t say “ref” at all in that context. It should say that the seated player is expected to observe, or something like that.
BTW I’ve enjoyed reading your analyses of this situation.
In Hunter's defense, if he actually saw a foul committed, then he'd be a dummy not to call it. No point having the rules if you're not going to follow them.
In Scott's defense, I have always said that if there is no referee and you know you committed a foul, then you call it on yourself. But if there is a referee and you know you committed a foul, then keep your mouth shut and keep playing or let the referee call the foul. The logic here is that sometimes a referee makes a mistake that works against you and you have to live with it...so if he makes a mistake that works for you, you can live with that too. Besides, even if Scott's shirt did touch the ball, he probably would not have known it in this case. It's too bad he didn't have the foresight to call for the referee beforehand, knowing that the ball position was problematic.
I know there's a lot of money involved, but at the end of the day you just have to file this one under "Stuff Happens" and move on.
In Scott's defense, I have always said that if there is no referee and you know you committed a foul, then you call it on yourself. But if there is a referee and you know you committed a foul, then keep your mouth shut and keep playing or let the referee call the foul. The logic here is that sometimes a referee makes a mistake that works against you and you have to live with it...so if he makes a mistake that works for you, you can live with that too. Besides, even if Scott's shirt did touch the ball, he probably would not have known it in this case. It's too bad he didn't have the foresight to call for the referee beforehand, knowing that the ball position was problematic.
I know there's a lot of money involved, but at the end of the day you just have to file this one under "Stuff Happens" and move on.
Last edited:
It seems that there was a witness who claims to have seen the foul. I think that might have swayed the ref somewhat. Sticky situation, but I can't fault her for the way she handled it.Yeah, it’s just been kinda driving me crazy that 90% of people on the internet are quoting her as saying that, and then acting like it’s the most ridiculous thing they’ve ever heard, when what she said is in the WPA rules almost verbatim. It’s the next part - if there’s a disagreement and the ref has no other evidence then there is no foul - that she got wrong.
It would be much better if it didn’t say “ref” at all in that context. It should say that the seated player is expected to observe, or something like that.
BTW I’ve enjoyed reading your analyses of this situation.