Class Move by Tyler Styer in Iowa, 10 Ball Showdown , against Justin Bergman

Sorry if Bob or anyone else here wrote the WPA rules, but why are they written so poorly/ambiguously. In this "calling obvious shots" case, the CSI rules are so clear for what must be called, while the WPA leaves one scratching their head. Same thing for the push and double hit shots from last week. The WPA rules stink the way they are written.

I vaguely recall Mark Griffen wanted the CSI rules to be written from scratch to be clear, because the other rule sets were always ambiguous.
Drafting rules is really hard; it is an art to be able to draft rules and/ or statutes. Knowing the substance is half the battle but getting unambiguous rules on paper that cover most situations that arise is not easy.
 
may be a classy move. but unfair to the other participants as you may now have to face a different player in the finals.

it could be where the better player now lost, but then with the gift wins, and goes on to win the tournament instead of someone else.

besides a tournament is a game of rules and if your opponent even if inadvertently doesn't follow them and the ref. punishes him, it needs to stand.
 
may be a classy move. but unfair to the other participants as you may now have to face a different player in the finals.

it could be where the better player now lost, but then with the gift wins, and goes on to win the tournament instead of someone else.

besides a tournament is a game of rules and if your opponent even if inadvertently doesn't follow them and the ref. punishes him, it needs to stand.
Easy way to fix a match as well.
 
Here’s something to think about….

Intentional fouls under this rule set are ruled as “loss of frame”. Tyler should have lost the rack when he did that. I questioned the refs on their decision after the match.
what did the ref say??
i have not read all the posts
 
may be a classy move. but unfair to the other participants as you may now have to face a different player in the finals.

it could be where the better player now lost, but then with the gift wins, and goes on to win the tournament instead of someone else.

besides a tournament is a game of rules and if your opponent even if inadvertently doesn't follow them and the ref. punishes him, it needs to stand.

If the rules are what I found (similar to the WPA rules) then I think the ref made the wrong call. The shot was obvious to Tyler and everyone in the room.

To me it’s one thing if the opponent doesn’t follow the rules, but it’s another thing if the ref gets it wrong. I watch a fair bit of snooker and I’ve seen top players arguing with the ref on behalf of their opponent when they think that the ref got it wrong. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player foul to give it back but I’ve seen them play a safety rather than a pot they could have made.
 
Sorry if Bob or anyone else here wrote the WPA rules, but why are they written so poorly/ambiguously. In this "calling obvious shots" case, the CSI rules are so clear for what must be called, while the WPA leaves one scratching their head. Same thing for the push and double hit shots from last week. The WPA rules stink the way they are written.

I vaguely recall Mark Griffen wanted the CSI rules to be written from scratch to be clear, because the other rule sets were always ambiguous.

The CSI rules as a whole don’t seem to me to be written from scratch but rather to have taken the WPA rules and made a few changes, and then added a lot of discussion and applies rulings. The result is that the rules and ruling document is 127 pages. Most people won’t read that. Hell, you won’t even watch a 20 minute video!

On the specific issue of call shots, I prefer the WPA version for professional play. No professional player or referee should be in doubt about obvious shots like the one that Justin played. I get why CSI wants a black and white rule for leagues where some jackass is going to say that the 1-6 combo wired over the hole wasn’t obvious, but I don’t think it should be necessary at the pro level or with any good players playing honestly.

By the way, I actually do like the applied rulings etc in the CSI rules. They deal with all kinds of weird situations. I actually referenced them in dealing with the question of whether threads and fibers from the cushion that are touching a ball are part of the cushion on a “frozen ball to a rail” issue (they aren’t).
 
My new friend/neighbor has autism, he's pretty sharp.
Great parents and 2 brothers.
I call him "Sport", he he's at my house OFTEN. We were watching this when Bergman fouled.
He spewed some vicious words and mad as a hornet at the ref.
Tyler bumped the ball to fouled giving it back to Bergman.
sport went off again this time with joy and glee and a new found respect for his new hero, Tyler.
Sport moved in about 3 weeks ago and has given me a whole new outlook on life.
I'm 72 have severe COPD, and couple screwed up joints, ankle, knee, L shoulder, and basically I 've just been here with no purpose/enjoyment. This has all changed now because of Sport.
WE have joined a gym, walk the neighborhood with our dogs, and play pool at another neighbors who adores this kid as much as I do.
If Tyler comes through Birmingham I'll bring Sport to see him and get an autograph.
I hope Tyler has a couple strong body guards because when Sport hugs you it's tough to tear him away.
God Blees Sport, my new reason to go all out improving my health!
 
Last edited:
The CSI rules are like you say. They give examples like the 1 is frozen to a ball hanging in the pocket and there is no way to make anything except the combo, but even then it must be called. I don’t remember the WPA rules ever being that explicit but it could be.

By the way, I like the old 14.1 videos where the referee called each shot. I remember a story (perhaps apocryphal) of a player who hadn’t played much 14.1 going to a tournament and just playing whatever shot the referee called out !
Force of habit, I call my shot and point w my cue to the intended pocket. My 14:1 mentor was anal about that stuff. Kinda stuck w me.
 
Ok. Enemy is on a critical shot, there is no ref, you feign disinterest and ignore him. You then claim you didn't hear a call - maybe he just pointed.
Is the guy supposed to make sure he gets your attention on every shot? Are you obligated to play attention?
 
Force of habit, I call my shot and point w my cue to the intended pocket. My 14:1 mentor was anal about that stuff. Kinda stuck w me.

Do you do this on every shot? Like you are straight in on the 1b - you point and call? Do you do this in non call shot games?

I do call every bank, carom or combo, not matter how obvious also through force of habit. I have to stop myself when playing 9b (which I play less often so I forget and sometimes call it and feel stupid).
 
Do you do this on every shot? Like you are straight in on the 1b - you point and call? Do you do this in non call shot games?

I do call every bank, carom or combo, not matter how obvious also through force of habit. I have to stop myself when playing 9b (which I play less often so I forget and sometimes call it and feel stupid).
I feel stupid when I catch myself doing it, only when playing 14:1, but most times it's such an ingrained habit I don't think about it. It has become an unconscious part of my game.
 
You got the 2 biggest robots in American pool....they probably acknowledged it telepathically.
You think Bergman is robotic? He seems more like a feel player to me. He has way too much body movement to be considered a robot lol.

Robots to me are Styer, Capito, Ouschan, Kazakis, Lechner, Pehlivanovic, Morra, etc.
 
being robotic might be good for winning but certainly takes away the enjoyment of the fans.

so that makes the person not good for the advancement of the game.
 
You think Bergman is robotic? He seems more like a feel player to me. He has way too much body movement to be considered a robot lol.

Robots to me are Styer, Capito, Ouschan, Kazakis, Lechner, Pehlivanovic, Morra, etc.

he has a lot of air stroking and stuff in his PSR but when shooting he doesn't have much body movement. kazakis probably has more body movement than bergman.

i don't know what the definition of robotic is but i guess a square style, with repeatable and robot like stroke? if so tyler fits the description better than bergman
 
Back
Top