Skip Maloney's coverage of Brittany Bryant's winning of the WPBA Blue Emu open.

USAPL.NYC

Registered
I am curious if Mr. Maloney was actually at the event, or did he just report whatever the tournament directors reported to him. Because if he was really in attendance, or even viewing the livestream feed, he would have witnessed the real story. If you were watching, you would have seen the most unprecedented shark move I've ever seen in my over 40 years in pool as a former room owner, USAPL and BCA league operator and referee.
In the middle of the match between Bryant and Jennifer Barretta, with Bryant DOWN 4-2, the tournament officials informed both players that because of "time issues", that a shot clock would be used for the remainder of their match. Ms. Barretta questioned this decision, stating that there had not been a shot clock used in any other match throughout the entire event. In fact, there was not even a mention of the possibility of a shot clock being imposed for any reason during the player meetings or at anytime up and until she was told mid match. Now, if you've ever watched both players play in events, you know exactly who this move was aimed at. You had the defending champion, who you even note in your article that Bryant was playing at a 58.8% winning percentage, about to play within her percentages.
The one and only reason that Bryant was victorious was because Barretta, a professional pool player for over 20 years, knew that she was being sharked. But this time she was being cheated by the same tournament officials who's priority should have been to protect the integrity of the events reputation, and the sport as a whole.
I ask any other pool player, for the lowest ball banger to pro, how would you feel if you where knowingly and obviously being cheated by the officials who in any other circumstance the officials who where there to protect you.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I would agree that the sudden imposition of a shot clock mid-match in the latest stages of an event in which no shot clock has been used or provided for in the player's meeting was inappropriate, but calling it cheating is off base, and it's also not sharking. It is likely that one player did a better job of dealing with the unexpectedly imposed shot clock than the other, but these are veteran players who've had to play with the shot clock countless times over their respective careers, and I've seen both of them play great pool when it was in use.

As for your claim that the article in which the results were reported should have dwelt on the matter of the shot clock, I strongly disagree and I have to wonder whether one could find any article ever written about any pool tournament ever played in which much was said about the shot clock.

Finally, Barretta is not quite the twenty year veteran you think, having turned pro in 2002.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Does it need to be discussed at a player’s meeting? It’s a WPBA event. WPBA rules are as follows...

“Shot Clock Usage
All matches may incorporate the use of a shot clock. if a match is progressing slowly, they will be placed on a shot clock by the tournament director at the end of the game in progress. A match may also be put on the clock at any time, at the Tournament Director’s discretion.”

It sounds like a bold accusation to call it sharking. I’m not sure in this accounting of the event or any other has provided enough context to question the TDs decision making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Z-Nole

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would agree that the sudden imposition of a shot clock mid-match in the latest stages of an event in which no shot clock has been used or provided for in the player's meeting was inappropriate, but calling it cheating is off base, and it's also not sharking. It is likely that one player did a better job of dealing with the unexpectedly imposed shot clock than the other, but these are veteran players who've had to play with the shot clock countless times over their respective careers, and I've seen both of them play great pool when it was in use.

As for your claim that the article in which the results were reported should have dwelt on the matter of the shot clock, I strongly disagree and I have to wonder whether one could find any article ever written about any pool tournament ever played in which much was said about the shot clock.

Finally, Barretta is not quite the twenty year veteran you think, having turned pro in 2002.


I've always thought of you as one of the more level headed guys around here so it surprised me that you wouldn't consider this a b.s. move. Everyone knows what they did here. And they know what they did.

The fact that you bothered to call out those couple of years service makes me wonder if your friends with the guys running the tournament. And if you are friends with someone over there it's only appropriate you would stand up for them.

I do agree none of this should make it into any write up. But we know.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Does it need to be discussed at a player’s meeting? It’s a WPBA event. WPBA rules are as follows...

“Shot Clock Usage
All matches may incorporate the use of a shot clock. if a match is progressing slowly, they will be placed on a shot clock by the tournament director at the end of the game in progress. A match may also be put on the clock at any time, at the Tournament Director’s discretion.”

It sounds like a bold accusation to call it sharking. I’m not sure in this accounting of the event or any other has provided enough context to question the TDs decision making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This was a WPBA sanctioned event but not a full-fledged WPBA rankings event. It was what's known as a satellite event, which awards just far fewer ranking points to the competitors and would, customarily, have no streaming or TV, which are the primary reasons for the use of the shot clock.

I don't know whether the same rules apply to a satellite event, but Barretta's claim, not disputed by the TD, that the shot clock had not been imposed in a single match up to her semifinal with Bryant is credible, so there's ample evidence that if the shot clock rule was, indeed, in effect, it was administered poorly and arbitrarily.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am curious if Mr. Maloney was actually at the event, or did he just report whatever the tournament directors reported to him. Because if he was really in attendance, or even viewing the livestream feed, he would have witnessed the real story. If you were watching, you would have seen the most unprecedented shark move I've ever seen in my over 40 years in pool as a former room owner, USAPL and BCA league operator and referee.
In the middle of the match between Bryant and Jennifer Barretta, with Bryant DOWN 4-2, the tournament officials informed both players that because of "time issues", that a shot clock would be used for the remainder of their match. Ms. Barretta questioned this decision, stating that there had not been a shot clock used in any other match throughout the entire event. In fact, there was not even a mention of the possibility of a shot clock being imposed for any reason during the player meetings or at anytime up and until she was told mid match. Now, if you've ever watched both players play in events, you know exactly who this move was aimed at. You had the defending champion, who you even note in your article that Bryant was playing at a 58.8% winning percentage, about to play within her percentages.
The one and only reason that Bryant was victorious was because Barretta, a professional pool player for over 20 years, knew that she was being sharked. But this time she was being cheated by the same tournament officials who's priority should have been to protect the integrity of the events reputation, and the sport as a whole.
I ask any other pool player, for the lowest ball banger to pro, how would you feel if you where knowingly and obviously being cheated by the officials who in any other circumstance the officials who where there to protect you.

Officials setting a shot clock is in no way sharking. A professional pool player for over 20 years would know how to play within a time limit also.

From seeing how many of Jen's matches go, I would just automatically put any of her matches on a shot clock. Her matches are well known for dragging on for much longer than any others in the tournament.

I did not see this event or read about it, was there actually a time issue there and was their match going slowly? Is there any reason you would think the officials wanted Jen to loose? Where they paid off by the mob, one of them was Bryant's cousin or something?

This post is really more "I like Jen and Jen lost" complaint, she is from NY, your screen name implies you are from NY. Thus your favorite lost and it's bad. Unless this match happened at like 10 am and they were not worried about the time, then I would agree that it was put in less than fairly. However Jen's opponent also has a right to complain about slow play, which is a real sharking move. I'm sure not by Jen but in general it's well known to slow down pace of play is a move.
 
Last edited:

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I've always thought of you as one of the more level headed guys around here so it surprised me that you wouldn't consider this a b.s. move. Everyone knows what they did here. And they know what they did.

The fact that you bothered to call out those couple of years service makes me wonder if your friends with the guys running the tournament. And if you are friends with someone over there it's only appropriate you would stand up for them.

I do agree none of this should make it into any write up. But we know.

Actually, I openly disagreed with the TD's decision to impose the shot clock.

I'm very insulted by your suggestion that my view could be biased by my association with those who directed the event. Rest assured, I don't have the remotest idea who they were.
 

Catalin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was imposed a shot clock before in the same conditions. I didn't take it personally - same rules apply to both competitors. I won that match. I really don't see any issue there.

Julian
 

Z-Nole

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Actually, I openly disagreed with the TD's decision to impose the shot clock.

I'm very insulted by your suggestion that my view could be biased by my association with those who directed the event. Rest assured, I don't have the remotest idea who they were.

Sorry, I assumed wrong. My apologies. I'm glad we agree they shouldn't have put the clock on someone for the first time in the finals. Because I'm sure she slowed played every match.

So to stay out of trouble I'm gonna spend the next few days trying to catch really big redfish and just barely legal yellowfin tuna. Too old for those big ones.
 

tucson9ball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm taking away one important detail here. Jennifer B. likes to play at a slower pace. Any money matches with her may involve a shot clock if her opponent knows it affects her this much. I'm calling BS!

Any tournament I've ever played in has time consideration. If somebody is playing at a slow pace of play, the ref is usually called over. After a warning, if the slow player continues to play slower than normal, a shot clock is brought out. It is in no way a shark move. It is merely to keep the game moving along at better than glacial speed.
I have no issue with the call.

The same thing happens in golf. Slow groups are warned to speed up their play. If they don't, a penalty stroke is imposed.

If Jennifer is claiming she would have won if the shot clock did not get imposed, I say it's all "sour grapes."
I was not there but bringing in a shot clock for slow play is pretty much the norm. No big deal. Nothing to see here, moving on.......
 

skip100

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sounds like a good thing for the spectators who would otherwise have been stuck watching a death march to the finish.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This was a WPBA sanctioned event but not a full-fledged WPBA rankings event. It was what's known as a satellite event, which awards just far fewer ranking points to the competitors and would, customarily, have no streaming or TV, which are the primary reasons for the use of the shot clock.



I don't know whether the same rules apply to a satellite event, but Barretta's claim, not disputed by the TD, that the shot clock had not been imposed in a single match up to her semifinal with Bryant is credible, so there's ample evidence that if the shot clock rule was, indeed, in effect, it was administered poorly and arbitrarily.


It’s hard for me to say if it was administered poorly / arbitrarily. I’m not aware of the status of the logistics of the overall event at that moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Scott Lee

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Whether it was "legal" or not, changing the rules in the middle of a match (let alone the middle of a tournament) is complete BS, and should be penalized some way.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I am curious if Mr. Maloney was actually at the event, or did he just report whatever the tournament directors reported to him. Because if he was really in attendance, or even viewing the livestream feed, he would have witnessed the real story. If you were watching, you would have seen the most unprecedented shark move I've ever seen in my over 40 years in pool as a former room owner, USAPL and BCA league operator and referee.
In the middle of the match between Bryant and Jennifer Barretta, with Bryant DOWN 4-2, the tournament officials informed both players that because of "time issues", that a shot clock would be used for the remainder of their match. Ms. Barretta questioned this decision, stating that there had not been a shot clock used in any other match throughout the entire event. In fact, there was not even a mention of the possibility of a shot clock being imposed for any reason during the player meetings or at anytime up and until she was told mid match. Now, if you've ever watched both players play in events, you know exactly who this move was aimed at. You had the defending champion, who you even note in your article that Bryant was playing at a 58.8% winning percentage, about to play within her percentages.
The one and only reason that Bryant was victorious was because Barretta, a professional pool player for over 20 years, knew that she was being sharked. But this time she was being cheated by the same tournament officials who's priority should have been to protect the integrity of the events reputation, and the sport as a whole.
I ask any other pool player, for the lowest ball banger to pro, how would you feel if you where knowingly and obviously being cheated by the officials who in any other circumstance the officials who where there to protect you.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Whether it was "legal" or not, changing the rules in the middle of a match (let alone the middle of a tournament) is complete BS, and should be penalized some way.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Hey, Scott, hope you're well and thriving.

Let me add some perspective here, speaking as somebody who has actually played the role of shot clock operator in a WPBA event a few times. I'll preface my comment by noting that it was a long time ago and that the rules may have since changed.

The rule for WPBA play vis a vis the shot clock was that any race-to-nine match in which eight racks had not been completed by the halfway mark of the allotted time would go on the shot clock. Hence, if a match were scheduled for two hours, if the score at one hour was 3-3, the match goes on the shot clock at the one hour mark and the shot clock is used for the remainder of the match. Hence, I don't consider this to be "changing the rules in the middle of the match," but adherence to the rule as written.

While I have a problem with how this match was handled, it is for a different reason. If a big field tournament like this one gets as far as the semis without the shot clock having ever being imposed, it means that slow play was tolerated up to that point. If there were 48 players in the field, over 90 matches would have been completed before the semifinal. For this reason, I find the imposition of the shot clock here to be arbitrary and, hence, unfair.

Just one man's opinion.
 

j13smiley

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Officials setting a shot clock is in no way sharking. A professional pool player for over 20 years would know how to play within a time limit also.
This.

From seeing how many of Jen's matches go, I would just automatically put any of her matches on a shot clock. Her matches are well known for dragging on for much longer than any others in the tournament.
And this.
 

Nostroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Some events are played entirely on the shot clock as we all know and its use in any tournament match that isnt moving swiftly should always be considered a possibility imho. Let's use an extreme example. player A is taking 5 minutes per shot. Nothing can be done because it wasn't mentioned in the player meeting? I didnt watch the match and i like both ladies.
 
Last edited:

DecentShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The OP makes it seem like there was a conspiracy to stop Jennifer from winning back to back years, but the story just makes it seem like its due to slow play. Speeding a tournament up obviously isn't sharking. Don't worry OP, if I knew Jennifer, I'd have a crush on her too.
 

gypsy_soul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sorry, I assumed wrong. My apologies. I'm glad we agree they shouldn't have put the clock on someone for the first time in the finals. Because I'm sure she slowed played every match.

So to stay out of trouble I'm gonna spend the next few days trying to catch really big redfish and just barely legal yellowfin tuna. Too old for those big ones.

Heck yeah bud I'm with ya , let them worry bout how fast ice freezes while we are fishing . Guys not even betting a dime and talking bout something that is in the rule book 📚. Rules are rules , drop it !
 

onepocketron

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Watched em put a shot clock on the men years back in Vegas. I was glad they did, it sped up the game. Granted it wasn't the finals, Seems kinda odd to me for the finals.
 
Top