Wowwwww!!!!!!

The Markster said:

Who is Poolchump? This is true of any sport. It's like in soccer when they take a dive to get a penalty kick to win the game. It's a tarnished win plain and simple. You can try to justify your actions all you want.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is a tarnished win.
Diving for a penalty yes. But in this case is more like arguing that an own goal shouldn't count because the defender got confused and kick the ball into his own team goal posts...
The fact is that you, for some reason, kicked the ball into your own goal posts. I don't care why. The ball crossed the line, so it is a goal.

Diving for a penalty would be something like if Shaw moved intentionaly while Strickland was on the shot, trying to confuse him and make him miss.. That case yeah, that would have been a tarnished victory because that's a pathetic move. He didn't do anything like that.

The Markster said:

Who is Poolchump? This is true of any sport. It's like in soccer when they take a dive to get a penalty kick to win the game. It's a tarnished win plain and simple. You can try to justify your actions all you want.

Click to expand...

How would you know poolchup is a oerson, an not just i calling you that...you show signs.

Bob Jewett said:

Or Strickland commenting to a spectator while his opponent is shooting that "This guy has no business being on the same table as me," just as a random example.:wink:

Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhh, Touché Bob, great example

AlienObserver said:

I don't think this is a tarnished win.
Diving for a penalty yes. But in this case is more like arguing that an own goal shouldn't count because the defender got confused and kick the ball into his own team goal posts...
The fact is that you, for some reason, kicked the ball into your own goal posts. I don't care why. The ball crossed the line, so it is a goal.

Diving for a penalty would be something like if Shaw moved intentionaly while Strickland was on the shot, trying to confuse him and make him miss.. That case yeah, that would have been a tarnished victory because that's a pathetic move. He didn't do anything like that.

Click to expand...

Yes but in this case the rule is subjective (good analogy btw) because Earl pointed to the corner pocket..and clearly was lining up the 10 ball...and it was obviously the shot to take so would you really need to call it all? It's kinda redundant to call every shot in straight pool.

The rules requires every ball and pocket to be identified. I believe this is still true, but years ago in a professional tournament a referee is utilized to identify each shot verbally...even if it is obvious. If the ref identifies the wrong shot, it is the obligation of the shooter to correct the ref...before shooting. Then the ref makes the correct call.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

The Markster said:

Yes but in this case the rule is subjective (good analogy btw) because Earl pointed to the corner pocket..and clearly was lining up the 10 ball...and it was obviously the shot to take so would you really need to call it all? It's kinda redundant to call every shot in straight pool.

Click to expand...

Scott Lee said:

The rules requires every ball and pocket to be identified. I believe this is still true, but years ago in a professional tournament a referee is utilized to identify each shot verbally...even if it is obvious. If the ref identifies the wrong shot, it is the obligation of the shooter to correct the ref...before shooting. Then the ref makes the correct call.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Click to expand...

Ya that's so silly...no need to call a ball unless doing a combo in a cluster.

Silly to you, but REQUIRED by the rules. Don't like them, play a different game. In fact, why not make up your own rules? Then you can play yourself and never make a mistake.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

The Markster said:

Ya that's so silly...no need to call a ball unless doing a combo in a cluster.

Click to expand...

Scott Lee "Silly to you, but REQUIRED by the rules. Don't like them, play a different game. In fact, why not make up your own rules? Then you can play yourself and never make a mistake"

It is not REQUIRED to indicate your intended ball and pocket according to the WPA rules for obvious shots. For a called ball to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made.

Being the head of The Traveling College of Billiard Knowledge and charging $225 to $375 an hour for this knowledge (but trying to hand it out here for free), I would think you should know the basic rules.

"Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
MLK Jr

Was he proved to be poochump?

Where did he go?

That poolchomp is like rain man. Brilliant idiot.

DJ62 said:

Scott Lee "Silly to you, but REQUIRED by the rules. Don't like them, play a different game. In fact, why not make up your own rules? Then you can play yourself and never make a mistake"

It is not REQUIRED to indicate your intended ball and pocket according to the WPA rules for obvious shots. For a called ball to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made.

Being the head of The Traveling College of Billiard Knowledge and charging $225 to $375 an hour for this knowledge (but trying to hand it out here for free), I would think you should know the basic rules.

"Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
MLK Jr

Click to expand...

If it's not required then don't call any shots. But the fact is he did.
It may be obvious, but when you call something else it's easy to understand why this shot became so controversial.


Let's break it down: The shot was obvious, so no need to call it (Side note, to me it's not so obvious. I don't like and don't play so thin cuts (espesially if by cutting it so thin the cue ball is going in the bunch so opening the balls so if I miss I loose the game) so I sometimes don't even see a shot like that. Plus Strickland thought about and lined up multiple shots, so I wouldn't know what did he ultimately decided to do) . Strickland however called something else, so I would expect him to play the shot he called. It's not my fault he called something else, it is his. And I expect from any profesional sport that the player who makes a mistake is punished by the rules. He is a profesional player, we don't play for fun in the local pool hall, he is playing in a profesional event. I expect him to be treated like a profesional and not a amature learning how to play and "oh, you made a mistake, that's all right, try again". And again, I don't care why he made a mistake, the fact is he did. I don't care if he got confused, his head hurt, his eyes were seeing the light of the truth, I don't care. Name ANY profesional sport in which if a player makes a mistake (admittedly a stupid one, but even so) he is treated with "oh, that's ok, no worries, continue".

Not even darts treat profesional players like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQk7jrlAvbM
Here is a video of Phil Taylor (something like 16 times world champion) miscounting and bust. It's obvious to the commentator since the 2nd dart that Taylor miscounted. Taylor makes 3 great darts, taking 139 when he needed to take 129. Yes, the darts were difficult, but doesn't matter, that's not what he needed to do. Result? "No score".
They didn't say "oh well, you made a mistake but come on, it was obvious you thought you had 139, so ok, you win"....

pt109 said:

It's been in the snooker rules for a lot of decades that in case of colorblindness...
...the ref must inform the player that he is shooting a brown for a red.
I doubt if that rule has been changed....the ref made a foul?

Click to expand...

AlienObserver said:

Are you sure about that rule?
Because Peter says "wasn't the first time I've done that and I'm sure it won't be the last"... And he says that "But fortunaly we do have the option of askig the ref where a ball is on the table, so if in doubt ask the ref"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIonVI2vI90
I don't think he would be saying that if the ref was obligated to tell him without him asking..

Click to expand...

Sorry to join this party so late and uninvited to boot, but I am urged to do so in defense of the Rules of Snooker which are so frequently misunderstood. (PT, I am surprised at you!)

I won't even begin to try to understand the myriad rules of the myriad games of Pool, but as far as Snooker goes, the linked snooker incidents show absolutely nothing unusual at all. It seems to me that the general aura of Snooker is different than that of Pool. The underlying premise in Snooker is that the striker ("shooter" to the uninitiated) OWNS the table. This means that he is to be uninterrupted, the crowd is shushed, the striker is not spoken to unless he speaks first. And with very little exception, the opponent, the referee, the audience greatly respect this concept which would seem to be so foreign to the world of Pool. In fact, this concept in the Rules carries so far that the striker might remain the "striker" for quite some time if he continues to linger at the table even after he has missed his shot as we sometimes see. To quote the Rule, Section 2., 5.: "The person about to play or in play is the striker and remains so until ...the referee is satisfied that he has finally left the table."

Another Rule (5.,1.,b)) states clearly: "The referee shall not:
(i) answer any question not authorised in these Rules;
(ii) give any indication that a player is about to make a foul
stroke;
(iii) give any advice or opinion on points affecting play; nor
(iv) answer any question regarding the difference in scores."

Funny thing about the Rules of Snooker...they are clear and precise. What is astounding to me is that "professional" Pool can even be played without a proper Referee officiating. It's anarchy.

I realize not everyone is as honorable and the stand up guy that I am...(in pool especially, but really in all walks of life)

NOT saying something to Earl when he knew he was not shooting at the ball he believed he called is BS. Plain and simple. If Earl has pulled BS moves in the past, raise above it. Shove your superior sportsmanship in his face. End of story in my opinion. Lame move by Shaw.

No point in having rules if sportsman ship gets in the way. I've been in events where you have to call pocket and on the last ball that's directly by the corner pocket , the guy brain farts and says side and fires it in the corner. Sooooo, we go by the rules or no?

AlienObserver said:

The question still is, if a player makes the same mistake twice in a single game, why the first time gets called that it doesn't count and the 2nd time gets called that it counts?? Doesn't make any scense.

Click to expand...

That is on the ref not on the player. I think the only reason Jayson complained was that the call went against Earl earlier.

Once we get into silliness like this at the pro game then it's no better than league players that love to get people on technical rules like marking a pocket when the ball is hanging or calling obvious shots. The funny part is that crap like that is usually called on by those people that are the most likely to cheat themselves LOL. As soon as I see a player start talking about if getting a jump cue at a different table is a foul or if there is a ball made that is near another ball or that they are ranked too high for a handicapped tournament when they clearly play well, those are the players that I watch for fouls they try to hide.

I had some dope tell me I needed to call a shot when I made a ball that was an inch away from another one. As if there was some confusion about what ball I was aiming at. Sure enough, people that new him told me he likes to pull crap that like on people all the time and to watch him when he is at the table since he won't call fouls on himself.

scsuxci said:

No point in having rules if sportsman ship gets in the way. I've been in events where you have to call pocket and on the last ball that's directly by the corner pocket , the guy brain farts and says side and fires it in the corner. Sooooo, we go by the rules or no?

Click to expand...

This problem has been around forever.....
...do you go by the letter of the law...or the spirit of the law?

I am all for the spirit of the law....the shooter wins.

scsuxci said:

No point in having rules if sportsman ship gets in the way. I've been in events where you have to call pocket and on the last ball that's directly by the corner pocket , the guy brain farts and says side and fires it in the corner. Sooooo, we go by the rules or no?

Click to expand...

I hear what your are saying, but I still believe that the rules should have never came into play. Jayson should have said something to clarify Earl's intention. Instead he sat there, waiting for the mistake to occur, and nearly flew out of his seat calling it out...It's BS.

AlienObserver said:

Are you sure about that rule?
Because Peter says "wasn't the first time I've done that and I'm sure it won't be the last"... And he says that "But fortunaly we do have the option of askig the ref where a ball is on the table, so if in doubt ask the ref"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIonVI2vI90
I don't think he would be saying that if the ref was obligated to tell him without him asking..

Click to expand...

acesinc1999 said:

Sorry to join this party so late and uninvited to boot, but I am urged to do so in defense of the Rules of Snooker which are so frequently misunderstood. (PT, I am surprised at you!)

I won't even begin to try to understand the myriad rules of the myriad games of Pool, but as far as Snooker goes, the linked snooker incidents show absolutely nothing unusual at all. It seems to me that the general aura of Snooker is different than that of Pool. The underlying premise in Snooker is that the striker ("shooter" to the uninitiated) OWNS the table. This means that he is to be uninterrupted, the crowd is shushed, the striker is not spoken to unless he speaks first. And with very little exception, the opponent, the referee, the audience greatly respect this concept which would seem to be so foreign to the world of Pool. In fact, this concept in the Rules carries so far that the striker might remain the "striker" for quite some time if he continues to linger at the table even after he has missed his shot as we sometimes see. To quote the Rule, Section 2., 5.: "The person about to play or in play is the striker and remains so until ...the referee is satisfied that he has finally left the table."

Another Rule (5.,1.,b)) states clearly: "The referee shall not:
(i) answer any question not authorised in these Rules;
(ii) give any indication that a player is about to make a foul
stroke;
(iii) give any advice or opinion on points affecting play; nor
(iv) answer any question regarding the difference in scores."

Funny thing about the Rules of Snooker...they are clear and precise. What is astounding to me is that "professional" Pool can even be played without a proper Referee officiating. It's anarchy.

Click to expand...

pt109 said:

It's been in the snooker rules for a lot of decades that in case of colorblindness...
...the ref must inform the player that he is shooting a brown for a red.
I doubt if that rule has been changed....the ref made a foul?

Click to expand...

I find this topic very interesting....and I might not win this in a formal debate.

I knew a ref who had been certified in Britain a long time ago.....
...and he was going by the old Billiards and Snooker Control Counsil rules.
He would always warn a man with color blindness about the brown for a red.

However, the professional side of the game started to deviate from those rules as early as
the '30s....they brought in the 'shoot again after any foul' option....
....which the BS and CC finally adopted.

So I'm not sure how the WPBSA looks at this situation....
...but if they will penalize a man for being colorblind...I disagree with them.

I ran a lot of snooker tournaments in the 80s...I had three or four regular players that had
this problem....I let everybody know that if they called a foul for them shooting the brown
out of turn that I would respot the balls and the shot would be played over.

I adhered to that thinking when I was gambling, also....
...penalizing a player for being colorblind is cruel and unusual punishment.

I think numbering the colors like American snooker balls would solve the problem....
...but I've never seen numbered snooker ball that were the official size and weight.