2026 Billard Beckmann Men’s Open
- Thread starter DutchPool
- Start date
Vogel's first title is a great day for pool. Well done!
Still, his form against the 800+ crowd really hasn't been terribly strong until this event. We all know that Felix will be a very special player, but he is not there yet. The eye test for me puts him at about Fargo 805.
Felix plays with a level of knowledge that is very rarely seen in a player his age (18 1/2). Still, let's not confuse his development curve with that of a Gorst (World 9ball champion at 18) or a Filler (who ran over 290 at 14.1 at age 14, was Mosconi MVP by age 20, and was World 9ball champion at age 21).
I've gotten to know Felix fairly well and he's a great kid with a great attitude and a business-like approach to his continuing development as a player. I can't wait to see what he's going to accomplish in his very promising career.
Wishing Felix every possible success in his ongoing pursuit of excellence.
The sequence begins at 2:01:00 in this video, with a scratch on the 3 ball:
After Wu's safe on the 4, Felix intentionally fouls the 5 to freeze it on the 10. Felix on 2.
Wu can't make the 4 usefully, and shoots it down-table leaving the cue ball stuck behind the 9.
Felix fails to hit the 4, on three fouls now (?!?).
Wu pockets the 4, gets position on the 5 to shoot it up-table, leaving the cue ball frozen to the back of the 10.
As Wu approaches his seat, he seems to warn Felix that he is on two. The railbirds pipe up, saying WTF, or the equivalent in Chinese, and Wu says something to Felix and the ref gets involved. Felix hits the ball but Wu wins the rack. The commentators say WTF to each other after realizing what happened. They had a scorekeeper counting the three fouls.
The ref said something to Wu after the rack, but it's not clear what. The ref clearly missed giving the warning twice. Wu also missed the warning after Felix's intentional foul on the 5. But....
It may be that even though this was the final, and there was a time keeper, the referee was still acting in "area referee" mode and was supposed to approach the table only when called over. I saw Felix call her over a couple of times from her position off-camera. Other than that, she only appeared around the table to rack. Assuming she was an area referee:
Wu failed to notify Felix that he was on two fouls for the intentional on the 5 as Felix came to the table, shooting from the back of the nine. When Felix failed to hit the 4 from there, he was again on two fouls, as he had not been warned.
The railbirds shouldn't have started chirping, but they did no real harm.
It is not part of the job of an area referee to keep track of the foul count.
Fortunately, the whole sequence had no apparent effect on the outcome of the match.
ref said just that to wu, "you did not warn him that he was on 2 fouls". but it was my impression that he shouldn't need to in a reffed final?
either way, well played final. glad to see felix win
In the chat, someone stated that the refereeing format was area referee for all matches, so it's the opponent who must give the warning.
I think there are advantages to not changing to fully refereed in the latter stages.
I am pretty sure it was an area referee. Note that Wu did give the warning (after the 3rd foul as he lost track) so clearly he knew to give warnings.
If it was a table ref, then the responsibility would be on the referee to give the warning. But IMO the player still needs to pay attention and make sure the referee does give the warning.
What advantages to you see? I understand not wanting to change things that effect match play (shot clock, racking etc) but I don’t see why having a table ref can be a bad thing.
The problem is that refs and players make mistakes. Most players play the large majority of their games without a ref and without deep knowledge of the rules. Add a ref, and you change the flow of the game and suddenly add rules that the players never apply in unreffed games. I can remember questionable calls in the last few years that had viewers screaming at their screens. And good calls that champion players decried as bogus.
In an ideal world, the players would follow all of the rules all of the time and the refs would never make a mistake.
I suspect the "least friction" path was chosen.
if so, the commentators were all wrong about the ref. wu should have warned felix himself, as the ref said. so then comes the other question; if you make three fouls and the opponent doesn't warn you on the second, doesn't even realize you have then three fouled.. what's the right thing to do, in terms of sportmanship?
not saying felix did wrong, he possibly was unaware himself (which can sometimes happen when one foul is a scratch/break foul and the others are failed safety returns).
I don’t know if Vogel also slept the foul count. But on the sportsmanship question, I just don’t see this an issue at all. The rules are crystal clear that the warning is mandatory and that without the warning you are still on 2. I just don’t understand how anyone would expect a professional or serious amateur to ignore the rule and concede the game.
To me this is very different than something like touching a ball when nobody sees, or hitting the wrong ball etc. Those are fouls under the rules and the fact that a ref wasn’t called or the referee missed it doesn’t change that fact. IMO sportsmanship does require you to admit that foul.
I have once, and only once, conceded a serious game on 3 fouls when no warning was given. I was playing in a tournament and losing to a good snooker player who was new to the country and the game and clearly didn’t know the full rules of 9b. He played for 3 fouls and got the 3rd foul but hadn’t warned me. In that rare circumstance I gave him the game and explained the rule. I didn’t want to take advantage of his newness. I would not have done so if I thought he knew the rules and just forgot. And if I was playing a professional tournament I’d never have done it even then - you have to know the rules.
Last edited:
I think a better way to handle that situation is to say to him as you approach the table on two and he remains silent, "You are required by the rules to warn me that I am on two fouls at the start of my inning," and then wait until he warns you.
Agreed.
As an aside, I will say that I have not strictly enforced the rule on the warning being given at the start of my inning as opposed to after the second foul - at least when the player warns me after the second foul and immediately plays for the 3rd foul.
I would say it’s not uncommon around here for the opposing player not to repeat the warning in that situation and I’ve never seen someone rely on it. I wonder if I polled 100 9b players how many would know you are supposed to give the warning at that time rather than after the second foul?
I actually think best practice is to warn both after the foul and at the start of the inning, especially if you are planning to make a few balls before you play for the 3rd foul. Your opponent’s memory of the first foul will be better immediately after the second foul.
