Turning Stone - Archer Forfeit vs SVB?

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm skinny ;)
Point is some players can use this dishonestly and call non existed foul.
Archer shouldn't give ball in hand because SVB didn't call ref to watch the shot period

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk

You call refs over to watch close hits, not because you think there's a chance your opponent may accidentally touch another ball.
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You call refs over to watch close hits, not because you think there's a chance your opponent may accidentally touch another ball.

I agree.

I've never played a person who called "foul" all the time for "nothing", however, I've played thousands of times where my opponent has knocked balls everywhere and said "whoops" and tried to place them back.
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Correct about this incident. The SVB 10b was, I believe, that he shot a straight in 10b (not early) into the obvious pocket and the call was that he didn’t call it. The pro version of “you didn’t patch the pocket”.

I thought it was against Biado but I could be wrong and yes it was straight in it was for the win for Shane I believe,


1
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Watching from my phone, where I can zoom waaaay in, and it's pretty obvious his sleeve rests on the 7. If the 7 moved in any way it is imperceptible to the unaided human eye.

Huge svb fan, but I dont think I could have called that foul on someone unless they were able ass and had recently kicked my dog.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
kinda interesting all around

The ball didn't appear to move, certainly wasn't obvious after the shot. Shane could have warned Johnny it looked like his shirt had touched the ball. Perhaps some past history of nitpicking on Johnny's part, Shane called the foul. Johnny could have denied the foul and that would have been the end of things, no ref. Instead Johnny accepted the foul.

Shane was looking at an easy out and Johnny would have to win five games before Shane won two after this game. As good a time as any to dog things off.

I seem to remember Johnny liking long sleeved shirts. That one was expensive, game, set, and match!

Hu
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
And they used to be such good friends. Oh well, that's Pool!

I just watched the video above. That was a chicken sh-t call by Shane! He must be having a bad year.

I made a bad assumption here. See my post #62
 
Last edited:

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The ball didn't appear to move, certainly wasn't obvious after the shot. Shane could have warned Johnny it looked like his shirt had touched the ball. Perhaps some past history of nitpicking on Johnny's part, Shane called the foul. Johnny could have denied the foul and that would have been the end of things, no ref. Instead Johnny accepted the foul.

Shane was looking at an easy out and Johnny would have to win five games before Shane won two after this game. As good a time as any to dog things off.

I seem to remember Johnny liking long sleeved shirts. That one was expensive, game, set, and match!

Hu

Johnny needs to give Lash Larue his costume back and get some more "pool tournament-friendly" attire.
 

Attachments

  • larue.jpg
    larue.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 837

couldnthinkof01

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I dont know which rules were in effect.
My understanding of all ball fouls is if
you touch another ball its a foul, no matter
if it moves or not. Clothing counts
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I dont know which rules were in effect.
My understanding of all ball fouls is if
you touch another ball its a foul, no matter
if it moves or not. Clothing counts

That is the way I always interpreted the rule, too.

You don't have to "move" the ball, just touching it is a foul.
 

9 Ball Fan

Darth Maximus
Silver Member
If the ball doesn't move, I'm not going to call a foul. I might mention that it touched; but i'd also say I didn't want a foul for it. Just roll up your sleeve, and keep playing. No harm, no foul.
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
I didn't see the 7 move. Even if I think my opponent's sleeve touched the ball if it didn't move I'm not calling a foul.
 

GideonF

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I didn't see the 7 move. Even if I think my opponent's sleeve touched the ball if it didn't move I'm not calling a foul.



If whatever this version of the rules is anything like all ball fouls, it is a foul to touch the ball whether it moves or not. You see it called regularly in snooker events and in properly refereed pool events from Europe (like the Matchroom events). So to me it’s a foul and should be called as such.

Now if it is some version where the ball has to move before it’s a foul, then it doesn’t look like a foul to me.

By the way, I was just at an event here in Toronto with Stephen Hendry and Jimmy White and local legend Cliff Thorburn. One of Cliff’s stories was Cliff being on the hill against Jimmy in a final of a major tournament and Jimmy calling a foul on himself that nobody saw. Cliff ran out and that was that.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
For me, if the ball didn’t move, I don’t think an opponent should call it....
....ONLY a referee.
It’s one of those fouls where Johnny wouldn’t know it he fouled or not.
 

SBC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm a little confused on the rules... so it's cue ball fouls only while setting up on the shot,
but then it's all-ball-fouls during the actual stoke?

That seems weird to me, do other tournaments handle things this way?

It's definitely gonna cause confusion and I don't blame Johnny for being annoyed.
I don't really blame SVB either, the rules are the rules, I guess if anyone is at fault
it's whoever made the rule... I don't see the need to split hairs about accidental nudges.
Just make them either fouls or not fouls.

If you see the opponent hit another ball prior to the shot or they notice, then the non shorting player replaces it. If it happens after the shot, it is a foul. We all play this way. Best way without a ref. Johnny should have called a ref and he'd be shooting.
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
If whatever this version of the rules is anything like all ball fouls, it is a foul to touch the ball whether it moves or not. You see it called regularly in snooker events and in properly refereed pool events from Europe (like the Matchroom events). So to me it’s a foul and should be called as such.

What I'm saying is, unless I see the ball move, I cannot really know for sure that he touched it. So no, I'm not calling a foul unless I see it move.
 
Top