Nice, thx for the write up. Was nice tah see Shaw recognize all of you in the pit, and was nice seeing his daughter at the end.
SJM at 1/2 the International
- Thread starter sjm
- Start date
Yeah, Jayson's family is always there for him and he loves it when they are present for one of his victories.
I'm pretty sure this was the occasion when something else also happened you may not have seen.
When Shaw tried to pick up the rack, he actually moved the 9 ball and maybe the other ball next to it. At least the 9 definitely rocked. I was watching up in the fourth floor screening room so I had the benefit of the commentary. One of them in the booth asked if the tournament rules were fouls on all balls, and yes, the rules were explicit that it was fouls on all balls. So the additional question was why that wasn't a foul and ball in hand, and as aggravated by that critical point of the match. Possibly the referee didn't see the ball move? But it was very clear from the camera view at the time.
Thank you for your review here, and nicely done!
Last edited:
Having raised two girls, I keep a close eye on em. I vividly remember her when Dad won the last US Open in VA, I think mom had the other in the oven at that time.
When Shaw or Filler are in the finals of any major event, I would never bet against them....these two guys have Overdrive, a gear few others have.
Last edited:
If a player disturbs a ball while picking up the template...I don’t think it should be a foul.
....he is not acting as a player in that action.
I agree, but re-setting a moved ball into their ''original'' position, now comes into play, & with no ref which player chooses the ''Original'' re-spot position? The ball may not be in one of the holes.... might be balanced on the plastic between holes?
Thanks, Sofia. I was not sitting close enough to notice that a ball had been moved when Jayson tried to lift the template, but I think we're still in the gray area here,
The primary referee, Ken Shuman, did not work this match. All referees had been instructed to remove the template immediately after the break and Ken did so every time in his matches. Hence, players never had to touch the template.
This match, however, was referred by one of Ken's assistants. The assistant referee made the mistake of leaving the template there after the break in the disputed rack, and this is the only reason that Jayson felt he had to do it himself. Hence, if he slightly moved a ball because he attended to the template to cover for a referee that had failed to do his job properly, it is arguable whether a foul should be called here. No doubt, Jayson would have done better to request the assistant referee attend to it, but one must wonder whether he thought the shot clock would run out if he did so.
The entire problem was caused by the assistant referee snoozing his responsibilities, and had a foul been called, a strong case can be made that it would have been unfair to Shaw. On the other hand, it's easy to see the other side of this, for if Kazakis saw the foul, it's easy to see why he was upset. In his view, we can guess, Jayson not only fouled moving a ball but also committed a shot clock expiration foul. Had the foul been called, I think we can assume the match would have reached 8-8 and who knows who would have won from there.
Mixups and disputes involving the rules governing the use of the template, I'm sorry to say, are not that uncommon in pool, and I've been on hand for a few of them.
It seems the referee, by failing in his responsibilities, put himself in a no win position here, as either way this was ruled, one party would have felt unnecessarily damaged.
You hate to see this sort of thing happen in a big match in a big event at a big moment, but it happened on this occasion, and it cast an unfortunate shadow on the proceedings.
Bring Back the Wooden Rack
Maybe it's time to consider the triangle/wood. I enjoy the sounds created by the ball group knocking on wood as they are gathered up. It would move play along, and there would NEVER again be a template on the table after the balls are broken.
As a pool room owner, it's the best tell of all, if a table or group is getting outta hand, the wooden racking ''sounds'' will let yah know. :thumbup:
Maybe it's time to consider the triangle/wood. I enjoy the sounds created by the ball group knocking on wood as they are gathered up. It would move play along, and there would NEVER again be a template on the table after the balls are broken.
As a pool room owner, it's the best tell of all, if a table or group is getting outta hand, the wooden racking ''sounds'' will let yah know. :thumbup:
You may be right, Bill, but I think the players like the template and feel it brings a desirable standardization to the rack, but as we've seen, the template comes with some issues that have yet to be fully worked out .
I'm old school like you, though, and have never bought into the notion that the balls have to be racked absolutely identically every time. I think it has made the game easier and a little more predictable due to layouts that repeat over and over.
With designated rackers for pro matches, use the frikkin' rack.
I vividly remember when I first saw someone use a template.
I realized IMMEDIATELY like a finger in hot water, I didn't like having anything....EXTRA....on the play surface. Chalk tho rolls into play at times
The play surface was for two things, cloth and balls. The 3rd element belongs in a non pro event to ELIMINATE ARGUMENTS/PROBLEMS.
I see your point, but since all the racking was done by refs and it was also their responsibility to remove the rack by rule, it is a player acting outside of the set rules also.
As always, fairness and the rules may not always match up. In other Opens and Internationals, the players did remove the templates, but not in this one, and not just for the tv table matches.
Last edited:
Very good points, and thank you. Frankly I snoozed on the shot clock expiration issue and didn't realize that was also occurring.
In the same match, iirc, Shaw brushed a hanging 8 with the back of his hand, moving it back and forth between the jaws, still leaving it hanging. Purely by accident as he was walking to the other side of the table for his shot. The Greek saw it but the ref did not. I also did not see it, although some in my group did. The replay showed it clearly, but SFAIK, there is no challenge or resort to replay to overturn a call or no-call. Of course it was also at a critical point of the match with the Greek trailing by just one game. The discussion went back and forth for a few minutes. Apparently eventually Shaw offered ball in hand to his opponent (although saying he was unaware it had happened), and it was declined. Controversy may be Shaw's middle name or something.
Having raised two girls, I keep a close eye on em. I vividly remember her when Dad won the last US Open in VA, I think mom had the other in the oven at that time.
When Shaw or Filler are in the finals of any major event, I would never bet against them....these two guys have Overdrive, a gear few others have.
I feel the same way (and I was confident Filler would beat Shaw to reach the finals, also).
I was a bit shocked that both of them had blunders at key late stages of their last matches. Which shows they are human and pool is full of rolls, but wow, it was still remarkable.
After Shaw got ball in hand on Lechner's miscue on an open table, within one shot he was out of line, and by the next one, his leave had fully hooked him on the next ball. (He had an easy kick to get pretty safe, and won that rack, but really?
) His unlimited fire power lets him play fast and loose, but I guess sometimes a little too loose. Late in his last match, Filler got a little out of line on the 6, and then badly out of line on the 7, to where the side pocket scratch loomed large. He was forced to play to the long rail, between the side pocket and the 9 which was 6 inches away from it. This left him short of shape on the 8, on top of it, about four inches in a straight line away from it to the head rail. He had the options of long banks to either corner (risky), or the standard thinning and going three rails to the opposite short rail. He bunted instead, leaving the cue ball on the eight just off the rail, but allowing his opponent the same easy safety option. But instead of sending the cue ball to the opposite short rail, his opponent played it short to the long rail and behind the 9 and hooked him. The commentators said it was an amateur mistake, and one none of the top players would make.
I feel the same way (and I was confident Filler would beat Shaw to reach the finals, also).
I was a bit shocked that both of them had blunders at key late stages of their last matches. Which shows they are human and pool is full of rolls, but wow, it was still remarkable.
After Shaw got ball in hand on Lechner's miscue on an open table, within one shot he was out of line, and by the next one, his leave had fully hooked him on the next ball. (He had an easy kick to get pretty safe, and won that rack, but really?
Late in his last match, Filler got a little out of line on the 6, and then badly out of line on the 7, to where the side pocket scratch loomed large. He was forced to play to the long rail, between the side pocket and the 9 which was 6 inches away from it. This left him short of shape on the 8, on top of it, about four inches in a straight line away from it to the head rail. He had the options of long banks to either corner (risky), or the standard thinning and going three rails to the opposite short rail. He bunted instead, leaving the cue ball on the eight just off the rail, but allowing his opponent the same easy safety option. But instead of sending the cue ball to the opposite short rail, his opponent played it short to the long rail and behind the 9 and hooked him. The commentators said it was an amateur mistake, and one none of the top players would make.
Shaw played lights out against Kaci....
I think you may be mistaken here, for I believe that a challenge is provided for in the procedures.
A similar controversy occurred when Dennis Grabe and Mike Dechaine matched up in what I believe to have been the 2016 US Open 9-ball in a late round. Grabe made a fine shot on the five ball and seemed to be heading for a break and run, but the cue ball went three rails and touched the overhanging template, which had been left there by Grabe after he'd racked them. Dechaine claimed that this was a foul, and demanded a ruling from the head referee. I must admit that, although I noticed the cue ball had hit the overhanding template, I didn't think it was a foul. Turned out I was wrong. The head referee solicited the opinion of Bob Jewett, widely recognized as the greatest authority on the rules of play, and the ultimate decision was that Grabe had fouled. The momentum of the match definitely shifted at that moment and Dechaine went on to win.
You had to feel for Grabe on that occasion, just as we feel for Kazakis on this occasion, but the vehicle existed then for a player claiming foul and demanding a ruling and I suspect the right still exists.
As far as a challenge, here is the applicable WPA rule:
1.10 Prompting Calls and Protesting Rulings
If a player feels that the referee has made an error in judgment, he may ask the referee to reconsider his call or lack of call, but the referee’s decision on judgment calls is final.
However, if the player feels that the referee is not applying the rules correctly, he may ask for ruling by the designated appeals authority. The referee will suspend play while this appeal is in process. (See also part (d) of 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.) Fouls must be called promptly. (See 6. Fouls.)
If a player feels that the referee has made an error in judgment, he may ask the referee to reconsider his call or lack of call, but the referee’s decision on judgment calls is final.
However, if the player feels that the referee is not applying the rules correctly, he may ask for ruling by the designated appeals authority. The referee will suspend play while this appeal is in process. (See also part (d) of 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.) Fouls must be called promptly. (See 6. Fouls.)
As for using a replay, it has been done before in major events. The use of video replay is specifically permitted in the case of an "area" ref. It is not specifically mentioned for a dedicated ref, but I see no reason it should be disallowed.
Thanks for chiming in here, Bob. Heaven knows why these types of situations arise so frequently, but to hear these guidelines is very informative.
After Denis Grabe showed himself to be a complete and utter ass in the 2018 Leende, NL Eurotour stop when he tried to harass Shane McMinn about the rack, and get in his head by insinuating that "That's how you Americans have to cheat, to win", I am filled with great glee every time he loses, and if he ever wins a major U.S. event, I may go into mourning for a week.
In all the years I served as a tournament director, it was the TD's decision that was final, not that of a referee. In most cases I would back up the ref's call, but there were times when a referee was simply not aware of the correct ruling and erred in making his call.
Even with the extensive rule book that covers most everything, there have been times where a judgement call must be made. In such cases I ruled in the "interest of fair play" whenever possible. In some rare instances where there was no logical ruling that could be made that was fair to both parties, I would ask who broke the balls and then have them start the game over.
Somehow I made it through over 200 tournaments with my integrity and reputation intact. I'd like to think that the pro players were glad to see me running their tournaments.
But....in a crowd your were hard to find....tho I'm 6'6'' so it was easy for me. :grin-square: