Conflict Over Concession of Game

[j2pac]

This happened in our weekly tournament the other night. In the hill-hill game, the 9 ball was hanging in front of the side pocket with 6-7 balls still on the table. Player A made the 3 but scratched in the side trying to get on the 4-9 combo, as the 4 was near the middle of the table.

Her opponent who is an extremely weak player takes ball in hand getting ready to shoot this unmissable shot even for him. Down on the shot but before shooting she mutters that it’s good and walks from one end of table to the other right by the side pocket while he is shooting. For some reason (as I said he’s a weak player) he hits it quite hard and it pops out.

He apparently doesn’t realize she’s conceded and goes back towards his chair. She seems to think twice about considering what to do, then approaches the table to shoot. As TD, I’ve watched this unfold from not far away. Normally I would stay out of it and leave it between the 2 players, but I could see she was headed back to the table, clearly taking advantage of her opponent’s ignorance, so I asked her if she had conceded. She reluctantly confirmed that she had so I told her the game was over and it doesn’t matter whether he shot and missed or not, that the concession ended the game at that point.

She stormed off and then came back to me after a few minutes to question my decision. Again I told her plain and simple, once conceded the game is over regardless of what happens afterwards. I also told her that to avoid this conflict in the future, just don’t ever concede any shot, particularly to a player capable of missing any shot.

I know I’m correct on the rule, but just curious if others think I did the right thing by getting involved and calling her on it? I just didn’t feel right letting this other player getting taken advantage of in this situation.

You are/were the tournament director. She admitted that she conceded. It wouldn't matter at that point, if the other player decided to lay on the pool table and make pool table Angels. After her admitted concession, the game is/was over.
The correct decision was made, and good advice was given. Don't overthink it. You were 100% correct.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Not what the op said happened. She complained about him getting involved.

She didn’t complain about me getting involved, she complained about whether she could take back the concession if the player shoots the shot and misses.

From where I was sitting and with the music playing, I honestly didn’t hear her concede the shot, but she always has very good table etiquette. When I saw her walk from one end of the table to the other going right behind the pocket her opponent was shooting at and about to pull the trigger, I knew that she had conceded. That’s why I asked her if she had conceded.

If she had denied verbally saying she had conceded, then I would’ve questioned her as to why she chose to walk right behind the pocket while her opponent was shooting. If she claimed it was just bad timing and her opponent agreed he did not hear her concede, I likely would have just made it clear to her that walking behind the pocket at that moment her opponent was shooting was very distracting / unsportsmanlike / sharking, but I possibly would not have awarded her opponent the game. Fact is she did admit that she conceded the game verbally, which made my ruling very easy.

 

[gregcantrall]

My favorite shun is the cons tit ought shun.
I still have yet to serve on a jury. Looking forward to food fight in the jury room.
So hope I have offended none and my work here is done. Bye bye you little cutie pie.

 

[soyale]

Decisive means that it would decide the match. You don't lose by conceding the first game in a race to seven.

The rule states that if you concede the match winning game you lose the match. It is a stupid, unnecessary addition.

Conceding usually isn't poor sportsmanship. The rule doesn't say anything about poor sportsmanship, you are the only one talking about poor sportsmanship in regard to the rule quoted.

i don’t think that it is written clearly that only the decisive rack calls for loss of match. i know i’m repeating myself here but as written I believe the rule simply reads “concession is loss of match,” and then only providing one example of such an occurrence which happens to be the decisive rack.

just goes to show how poorly written it is that we have differing opinions on what it says.

if it is indeed loss of match to concede at any time i think it is a bad rule. if conceding means loss of game in any rack i think it makes sense. If it only applies to the decisive rack then i also think it is a bad rule and should apply to every rack.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Chili Palmer]

I don’t know man.. Don’t shoot the shot if someone conceded. That being said I wouldn’t have gone back to the table after doing so. The rare occurrence I do concede I always knock the ball in the hole and shake the persons hand. I would have had to say something to her.
It’s kind of the same thing for golf. If someone tells you you’re good on a putt don’t putt it. Lol pick that shit up and head back to your cart.

Sometimes it's hard to not pull the trigger when you're down and set. I've done it many times and I've dealt with this. They concede - it's over. It's like the football coming out of the hands of a player after he's crossed the goal line - it's irrelevant.

 

[garczar]

At least its a equal opportunity sport, a nit is a nit regardless of sex. She sounds like a real piece of work just based on this one episode. Tells a lot about what she's made of. Not much it looks like.

 

[gregcantrall]

i don’t think that it is written clearly that only the decisive rack calls for loss of match.

Not sure what rules set you are playing by and reference. I am accustomed to the BCAPL rules, which award another game for an early concession. So if you rake the balls in rack 1 you are now down 2-0. Simple enough rack 'em. Paying double is like eating smart pills.

 

[Bob Jewett]

jeez. As per https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/

1.11 Concession

If a player concedes, he loses the match. For example, if a player unscrews his jointed playing cue stick while the opponent is at the table and during the opponent’s decisive rack of a match, it will be considered a concession of the match.

so with the vague language, her “concession” not only immediately lost her that rack, but also the entire match?? i can’t help but think this was written about a player conceding the match and not just a game but again the way it’s written doesn’t offer any wiggle room. the second sentence is a “for example” and mentions the decisive rack, but the sentence above just says flat out if you concede you lose the match. This needs to be re-written.

The rule seems to cover only concession of a match when the shooter is on the hill. Concession of individual games should also be covered.

 

[garczar]

The rule seems to cover only concession of a match when the shooter is on the hill. Concession of individual games should also be covered.

You un-screw match is over. Individual game 'that's good' concessions need to be enforced as well.

 

[ChrisinNC]

You un-screw match is over. Individual game 'that's good' concessions need to be enforced as well.

In our poolroom, in all our tournaments, concession of any game at any point during that game applies to that current game only and not the match, unless the opponent is on the hill. That will continue to be the rule as long as I’m TD.

 

[maha]

can you concede and the other player not accepts it and shoots the shot??
or do you have to accept it even if you dont want it.

my point then is if you reject it and miss then the game goes on. so if someone concedes the game you should accept it and not disturb the table and let them do it.

i think the rules should be a person can concede verbally or by disturbing the balls. and if verbally the opponent needs to verbally accept it.

this crap about picking up the rack or unscrewing your shaft isnt right to be a forfeiture of the game. just ask if they have conceded the game or set.

 

[ChrisinNC]

can you concede and the other player not accepts it and shoots the shot??
or do you have to accept it even if you dont want it.

my point then is if you reject it and miss then the game goes on. so if someone concedes the game you should accept it and not disturb the table and let them do it.

i think the rules should be a person can concede verbally or by disturbing the balls. and if verbally the opponent needs to verbally accept it.

this crap about picking up the rack or unscrewing your shaft isnt right to be a forfeiture of the game. just ask if they have conceded the game or set.

The whole point of this is to avoid conflicts - same reason bar room rules are so screwed up. Once conceded the game is over - no exceptions. It doesn’t matter what transpires after that.

 

[DeadStick]

In our poolroom, in all our tournaments, concession of any game at any point during that game applies to that current game only and not the match, unless the opponent is on the hill. That will continue to be the rule as long as I’m TD.

So, for example, you would let a player continue in the match if they unscrewed while their opponent was on the money ball, as long as it wasn't the winning game? They would only be penalized with the loss of that game?

To me, it's a very different type of concession to unscrew, and a huge sharking move, compared to a statement of "that's good" on the money ball.

 

[ChrisinNC]

So, for example, you would let a player continue in the match if they unscrewed while their opponent was on the money ball, as long as it wasn't the winning game? They would only be penalized with the loss of that game?

To me, it's a very different type of concession to unscrew, and a huge sharking move, compared to a statement of "that's good" on the money ball.

Common sense - of course unscrewing is a match concession. A game concession is verbally giving your opponent the game or raking the balls. Two completely different scenarios.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Whoa-there TD/Owner, not so fast!
Unless one or both of the opponents asked for your advice prior to the end of the Hill/Hill game ending shot, You had no reason to involve yourself into their match.
There may have been side bet gamblers, or opponents, who had extra money in the game that you didn't even consider prior to interjecting your common-sense, hearsay, choice into the game.
There may have or may not have been mucho-money involved and for you to have based your game ending decision without consideration could have led to many having to fight their way out of your tournament.

It was a tournament. He was the tournament director.

pj <- nuff said - for those who didn't/can't read the first post
chgo

 

[soyale]

The rule seems to cover only concession of a match when the shooter is on the hill. Concession of individual games should also be covered.

i was wondering what your take on this would be. it doesn’t specifically state that you have to be on the hill, merely that conceding is loss of match. The rule goes on to provide an example of what happens in a decisive game but does not state whether or not the rule applies only in the decisive game.

If you can find any further clarification in the rules, please share as i would love to see it. There doesn’t seem to be a definition for “concession”.

I apologize that i am just repeating myself at this point.

 

[soyale]

Not sure what rules set you are playing by and reference. I am accustomed to the BCAPL rules, which award another game for an early concession. So if you rake the balls in rack 1 you are now down 2-0. Simple enough rack 'em. Paying double is like eating smart pills.

i have been linking and referring to the wpa rules.

Rules

Navigate the rules and regulations of pool with ease. Stay informed and play fair with WPA Rules!

wpapool.com

 

[Jimmorrison]

Money has nothing to do with the correct decision. The amount at stake will affect some people’s reactions, based on who they are.
I wish people would stop posting incorrect information on golf. In a match, once a putt or a hole is conceded, that hole is done.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Whoa-there TD/Owner, not so fast!
Unless one or both of the opponents asked for your advice prior to the end of the Hill/Hill game ending shot, You had no reason to involve yourself into their match.
There may have been side bet gamblers, or opponents, who had extra money in the game that you didn't even consider prior to interjecting your common-sense, hearsay, choice into the game.
There may have or may not have been mucho-money involved and for you to have based your game ending decision without consideration could have led to many having to fight their way out of your tournament.

Yes, there was some prize purse $ involved but not much and believe me there were no side bets on this match. Although generally I stay out of it unless called on to judge a shot or make a ruling, I weighed the principle of not allowing a player to take advantage of a considerably less experienced player by attempting to reverse an obvious concession as taking precedence over staying out of it.

You are the first and only respondent that did not back my decision, which on this forum is quite an impressive consensus.

 

[hurricane145]

Common sense - of course unscrewing is a match concession. A game concession is verbally giving your opponent the game or raking the balls. Two completely different scenarios.

I agree. If you take your cue apart anytime in a match it should be a concession of the entire match. Taking it apart shows you are done playing at least that match and that you are off to go do something else. Hard to imagine anyone ever taking a cue apart early in a match only to put it back together again for the next game in the same match.