Banks
Banned
I think he means the guy just needs to losen up. :thumbup:
Another controversy with Mike Dechaine. This is beyond imagination...
- Thread starter HelloBaby-
- Start date
I think he means the guy just needs to losen up. :thumbup:
it wasn't on the playing surface, it was on the rail.
lol people keep repeating this as if it's new information. Everyone has always understood where the template was. But the fact that it's not a foul when it's on the playing surface is relevant to whether it's a foul when it's on the rail, especially if it's not explicitly in the rules, which apparently it's not.
You cant say for certain if it would or would not have changed the cue balls path. In that sense, foul.
If Mike placed the rack on the rail, common decency dictates that you stfu and dont mention it.
If the shooter placed the rack on the rail, then they only have themselves to blame and you stfu and deal with it.
If a ref placed the rack on the rail it is their call as to whether its a foul or not, in which case both players stfu and get on with it.
Pro pool is boring enough to watch without having to sit through a group of men discussing the petty side of things for 5 minutes.
Its a shame when players take to the internet and whine about a decision made by a ref. Thats why we have them in pool, to resolve differences of opinion and to enforce the rules. Without them pro pool would be even more dull to watch. Although i do like watching grown men have hissy fits every now and again, people pay to watch the quality pool on show.
If Mike placed the rack on the rail, common decency dictates that you stfu and dont mention it.
If the shooter placed the rack on the rail, then they only have themselves to blame and you stfu and deal with it.
If a ref placed the rack on the rail it is their call as to whether its a foul or not, in which case both players stfu and get on with it.
Pro pool is boring enough to watch without having to sit through a group of men discussing the petty side of things for 5 minutes.
Its a shame when players take to the internet and whine about a decision made by a ref. Thats why we have them in pool, to resolve differences of opinion and to enforce the rules. Without them pro pool would be even more dull to watch. Although i do like watching grown men have hissy fits every now and again, people pay to watch the quality pool on show.
worldbeater
Banned
These template racks are garbage. How many times do you see a rack broken and the money ball goes back a few inches, hits the rack and stops....leaving an early dead combo in the rack? This sort of thing is killing the game.
I see Brunswick stamped racks from the 1950s selling for 50 bucks average on ebay. You think anybody will pay a dollar for a POS template in 60 years? It's a scourge on pool. Creates more problems than it solves.
I see Brunswick stamped racks from the 1950s selling for 50 bucks average on ebay. You think anybody will pay a dollar for a POS template in 60 years? It's a scourge on pool. Creates more problems than it solves.
Last edited:
I'd rather have the rack stop a ball 1 cm short than have the 9 shoot in the corner or sit near the corner, or watch someone rack for 5 minutes or re-rack 4 times or get a slug rack, or line up a dead combo anyway because there is a lose ball next to the 9. I did a thread about racking at a recent tournament where they used the best standard rack out there, the Delta. It had a wired 9 ball combo several times every match. Enjoy the read http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=406932
The number of times something "bad" happens due to a loose rack is way more than due to a tight rack.
Just because a $5-10 piece of plastic is not likely to be a collectable in 60 years does not say much. My 04 Matrix won't be worth much in 10 years but it's still a damn reliable car that does everything it should.
Last edited:
Agreed. It was Grabe who placed the rack on this occasion. In rack your own format, he broke the rack and was on his way to a possible run-out when the shot that necessitated the ruling occurred on the five ball.
worldbeater
Banned
With magic rack the 9 or 10 typically doesn't move 5 inches. Sitting there it's ripe for early combos . If I'm playing anything over 100 a set I would refuse the MR. It can decide sets.
To save rotation pool and pro pool altogether some governing body needs to come to a concensus about racking. Watching these highly accomplished pros whine like little girls is getting old.
It's up to the player at the table to see that the table is in order.
it's a very commonsense rule and Pidge should be well aware of it...SNOOKER.
WHEN YOU SHOOT, BE RESPONSIBLE
So if the rack is left laying on the table and a ball touches it, it's not a foul. If it's on the rail and a ball touches it, it's a foul? LOL That's just stupid. I think template racking is best for tournaments but this kind of stuff ruins it for everyone. Also, the fact that the ref asked the crowd for their opinions is nothing short of comical. "Excuse me, group of people who may or may not know the rules and could possibly be betting on this match, was that a foul?" What could go wrong?
Nobody was asked whether it was a foul. The fans were asked whether the rack was touched by the cue ball and several confirmed having seen it happen.
As a 40 year veteran of the tournament trail, I'd guess I've seen spectator input solicited by a referee on at least a dozen occasions. When Bob Jewett, who wrote most of the rulebook, says that the rules explicitly provide for solicitaiton of spectator input in a situation like this one, that should satisfy even the most diehard player or fan.
All that said, I'd rather just have the rule changed to say that this isn't a foul. I'm not a big fan of all ball fouls either. A player touches a ball with his/her shirt and doesn't move it and that's a foul --- just another example of having a rack decided by an incident that had no bearing on the play. Shane's foul that cost him a chance to go double hill with Deuel was an example of a foul that gets in the way of the way things ought to be. He moved a ball that was about seven feet from the one ball, on which he was playing safe, and it would have had absolutely no impact on the play.
To me, the fact that this incident was, in my opinion, handled correctly by the single most knowledgeable scholar on the rules of pool is not sufficiently comforting, because the rules themselves need revisiting.
Thing is snooker has a ref, fully aware of whats going on. If you eff up like williams has done in the past then its your fault...which males me think, who left the rack on the rail. If i left it id be like fair enough, and i would verbally abuse my self whilst sat in my seat.
I forgot pool is like who wants to be a millionaire. Ask the audience is a great asset.
Andrew,
When the template is used, as long as it stays in the original spot, all current governing groups agree it is part of the playing surface. Once it has been removed from the playing surface, it becomes a foreign object no different than a piece of chalk, a rack or pocket marker
.If the cue ball strikes the now rack as it travels against the rail it is a foul. Period. If the players don't like the rule, have the governing body change it. JMHO.Lyn
Asking the audience for witness is in instructions to a snooker referee....
....once again...common sense...which works in action also.
That league thinking....no ref, no foul, doesn't get it at the highest level of the game.
I'll get on it right away. Can you send me the number to the governing body?
Andrew,
When the template is used, as long as it stays in the original spot, all current governing groups agree it is part of the playing surface. Once it has been removed from the playing surface, it becomes a foreign object no different than a piece of chalk, a rack or pocket marker
Lyn