Another weird happening at the IPT

This would be a stalemated situation which is covered in the BCA, VNEA, and WPA rules as far as I know. If both players can make legal shots without attempting to win the game on their turn and they elect to do so then the game is stalemated and should be ended and replayed. It is not fair to simply tell them that they cannot play safeties. I am 100% certain that if one or the other could have played a safety that was likely to net them ball in hand then they would have.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed in Charlie Ursitti's decision to call Deno. Ridiculous. The referees should know EVERY rule and EVERY situation inside and out with NO NEED to call the tour director.

And, there should be a referee AT EVERY TABLE. How about REAL POOL, REAL RULES, REAL REFEREES, REAL MONEY.

John
 
Tom In Cincy said:
Steve,

There are other situations like mechanical problems (cloth, rail, lighting) that the players cannot control.

This match was running seriously late, enough so that it would affect the next scheduled match. Something had to be done. The two players knew they were playing slow and that it would cause consequences.

In a montly, weekly, annually run tournament I would have put them on a shot clock and a warning for slow play. I actually ran a shot clock at the US Open a few years back on a hill-hill match.

But, this being the FIRST HUGE IPT EVENT, I have to trust what Deno decided. Even if he later admits to being 'rushed' in this decision, and could have made another, I would defend his 'quick making a decision' rather than just letting it happen, Deno has a well deserved reputation for running tournaments.

I would also like to point out that Charlie Williams is one of the slowest players I've ever seen. With that, if I were a ref at this event, I think I would have warned both players at the halfway point that there will be consequences for 'slow play' and be prepared to answer with the penalties.
Click to expand...

The answer to slow play is - a shot clock - Kevin was very vocal and iirc there was something in a press release praising the IPT for the fact that the players aren't under pressure from a shot clock.

Use Grady's method and use a chess timer. Put two hours on it and when each player finishes their turn they hit the timer. A player can take as much time as they want to but when their two hours are up they lose if they are not ahead in the match. This rewards the player who is efficient with thier their time.

John
 
onepocketchump said:
Use Grady's method and use a chess timer. Put two hours on it and when each player finishes their turn they hit the timer. A player can take as much time as they want to but when their two hours are up they lose if they are not ahead in the match. This rewards the player who is efficient with thier their time.

John
Click to expand...
ohhhh, I like it!
 
onepocketchump said:
... Put two hours on it and when each player finishes their turn they hit the timer. A player can take as much time as they want to but when their two hours are up they lose if they are not ahead in the match. ...
Click to expand...
The traditional way is that you lose if you run out of time regardless of the score. I assume you don't mean two hours each.
 
onepocketchump said:
This would be a stalemated situation which is covered in the BCA, VNEA, and WPA rules as far as I know. If both players can make legal shots without attempting to win the game on their turn and they elect to do so then the game is stalemated and should be ended and replayed. It is not fair to simply tell them that they cannot play safeties. I am 100% certain that if one or the other could have played a safety that was likely to net them ball in hand then they would have.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed in Charlie Ursitti's decision to call Deno. Ridiculous. The referees should know EVERY rule and EVERY situation inside and out with NO NEED to call the tour director.

And, there should be a referee AT EVERY TABLE. How about REAL POOL, REAL RULES, REAL REFEREES, REAL MONEY.

John
Click to expand...



I totally agree. This is a TERRIBLE call at a critical point in the match (hill-hill). And made by a TD that is not even present. C'mon! Shame on you Charlie.

This confirms the buzz I heard from several players in Vegas. That Deno is not too poolplayer friendly. Like many from the Three Cushion discipline, he looks down on and frequently demeans the poolplayers. He has openly shown contempt for many of them.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The traditional way is that you lose if you run out of time regardless of the score. I assume you don't mean two hours each.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how I mean it. I guess I mean it the way it happens in chess, which is probably how you described it.

John
 
I think everyone should cut some slack to the TD's. This situation might have been avoided with the rule that they would be penalized by adding a game to each score, but I only watched after it was hill-hill. Maybe that was what got them to hill-hill, I don't know.

I can't remember the exact situation, but one person had several solids (I believe Charlie) on the table and the other only had one stripe down by the corner pocket. Charlie would hide by shooting a solid, then Marcus would 1 or 2-rail kick softly.

Possibly you're right, the solution was to move them to some other table, lol. I think Deno made the fairest assessment he could under the circumstances. He did not know who would be favored with that decision as he was not there.

Because this is the first full tournament, no one can foresee all the eventualities that can occur. I don't think I have been in that situation before as a tournament director...but then I have never had to keep such a tight schedule before either.

There are several other little things that can be implemented in the future...positioning of the refs while watching shots, consistency with calls, etc. The players were all given assessment sheets that we will fill out when we get back home...all to make the tournaments better in the future...and we got those several weeks ago! I think contrary to what has been said, Deno cares very much about the players and the quality of the tournaments and it shows.

By and large, with a production this size, everyone has been exceedingly wonderful here, taking care of our every need and with a few exceptions, everything has gone off without a hitch. I think the IPT will come to some decisions about the situations that have come up and will be better for them.

I don't believe the rules were changed, per se in mid-stream. I think an additional rule was put into play as they saw fit, to speed up a hill-hill match that was dragging. I believe both players knew they were working against the clock and that it might take its toll anytime.
 
rackmsuckr said:
I don't believe the rules were changed, per se in mid-stream. I think an additional rule was put into play as they saw fit, to speed up a hill-hill match that was dragging. I believe both players knew they were working against the clock and that it might take its toll anytime.
Click to expand...
Very eloquently worded Linda. I like that. ;)
 
rackmsuckr said:
I think everyone should cut some slack to the TD's. .
Click to expand...

It's not the TD's I have a problem with. The game they are playing is a more than a hundred years old. There is no REAL REASON to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the rules of 8-ball. The IPT should have figured out every situation that could come up and had a rule in place for it.

I also emphatically disagree with the practice of adding a game to the scoreboard. I can't think of one single sport where the participants are moved along by the tournament staff.

Can you imagine the referees adding a game to player's scores at Wimbledon because two players are volleying "too much"? I mean too much is too much. Just implement a shot clock or shorten the races.

Charlie Ursitti should not need to call Deno for anything rule related. I will tell you this though. At the LJJ/Sigel match there was a situation where he clearly did not know the correct rule. I forget the exact situation but he didn't know the rule and as a result Mike Sigel got ball in hand I think and the win in that game. Several people sitting next to me - all experienced league players commented on it. Charlie just stood there for a clearly uncomfortable 10-15 seconds with a blank look.

Get some uber-qualified referees. Make them take tests and PAY them well for their services. Whats another 50gs in a venture worth so many hundreds of millions?

John
 
cuechick said:
I do not agree with this situation as described as being nonsense, 8 ball is a game of strategy, like chess. I think there is a big difference between slow play and strategic play. I just think changing the rules mid game is wrong.
Click to expand...


I agree totally. Everyone is so stoked about 8-ball being played because it requires more strategy and thinking. And then all of the sudden when a game becomes a chess match they make the most stupid call in the world and claim that the next player to play a safety is instead giving out ball in hand? How in the hell do you even justify that when the next person shooting at that moment is getting totally screwed in that situation?

If the IPT is going to make such assinine moves as this was then they might as well go back to the shootout that 9-ball was because they clearly dont understand what makes 8-ball such a great game to begin with and we dont need them screwing around with it like this.
 
my 2 cent..

all I can say is... all the Filipinos(9) will advance to the next round (Day 5)... now that's exciting.. :D
 
BallBuster said:
all I can say is... all the Filipinos(9) will advance to the next round (Day 5)... now that's exciting.. :D
Click to expand...

Jose Parica might have started the invasion but the IPT will turn into total invasion by Filipino players. At least 3 more entered the USA this year & are making their mark. I am sure that a dozen more will follow now that the money is there.
 
BallBuster said:
don't forget Taiwan... they will come..
Click to expand...
Yes they will but they have to qualify first! And if they grew up playing on pristine Simonis covered tables they are at a disadvantage. The kids that can play here now are coming out and have total disrespect to higher eschelon when it comes to matching up.
 
Last edited:
I think they should take a leaf out of the english 8 ball/snooker rules.

If it a stalemate situation via a tatical battle where neither players is taking any clear advantage and after a number of repeated shots are played "the ref" should call or ask both players if they want a rerack so if this was applied early then their would be no reason to have dragged the rack and match for so long, having the players/spectators muling around the table over the pretty much the same position for such a long time.

If it really dragged on the ref should make the call there and then. Normally in snooker or english 8 ball pool (depending where you are) the ref would say ok after x shots if the position is still the same then a rerack would be made.

so I can see no reason why the ref's opinion is not applied more as obivously in this particular scenario it was tense hill hill match then caution and clear mind should have been applied.

Making up rules espeically one that tells the player at a crucial point in the match "that they cannot play a safety" wasn't a logical or fair call as that pretty much telling them to finish (any means necessary) or risk losing anyway. ie forcing them to quit.
 
Last edited:
Kyo said:
I think they should take a leaf out of the english 8 ball/snooker rules.

If it a stalemate situation via a tatical battle where neither players is taking any clear advantage and after a number of repeated shots are played "the ref" should call or ask both players if they want a rerack ...
Click to expand...

There is a stalemate rule in the World Standardized Rules / BCA rules also, although the strange thing is that it has no number (it just appears after 4.20 Loss of Game so perhaps it is part of 4.20, I dunno). Here is the rule :

STALEMATED GAME
If, after 3 consecutive turns at the table by each player (6 turns total), the referee judges that attempting to pocket or move an object ball will result in loss of game, the balls will be re-racked with the original breaker of the stalemated game breaking again. The stalemate rule may be applied regard-less of the number of balls on the table. Please Note: Three consecutive fouls by one player in 8-ball is not a loss of game.


As John pointed out, the game is old and has a developed set of rules. Why the IPT had to write their own and leave out this important rule is beyond me.

Dave
 
One thing that has not been mentioned is that this tour is in the process of being build and the future lifeblood of a successful tour will be TV exposure and ability to sell advertizing time. For better or worse I think they are drawing a hard line that all matches will be finished on time to facilitate television. Aside from the specifics of this particular call I think the IPT is sending a strong message in many ways that both players must keep in mind throughout the match that it is critical that matches do not go overtime. My guess is that who wins any given match is not nearly as important as finishing on time.

Absolute fairness on any particular call likely may yield to the greater good of keeping things on schedule.
 
breakup said:
One thing that has not been mentioned is that this tour is in the process of being build and the future lifeblood of a successful tour will be TV exposure and ability to sell advertizing time. For better or worse I think they are drawing a hard line that all matches will be finished on time to facilitate television. Aside from the specifics of this particular call I think the IPT is sending a strong message in many ways that both players must keep in mind throughout the match that it is critical that matches do not go overtime. My guess is that who wins any given match is not nearly as important as finishing on time.

Absolute fairness on any particular call likely may yield to the greater good of keeping things on schedule.
Click to expand...

This is what I cannot accept, that a TV schedule can somehow dictate shot selection at the table. It's putting the production value of the tournament ahead of fair competition. Pehaps they should allow a bit more time between rounds ? The choice of an exact time between rounds is arbitrary, and maybe it's just too short ? Changing that parameter would reduce the likelyhood of a match going "over time". Maybe they should add the Stalemate rule back in, it was there for a good reason as the ITP may have discovered though this situation. These are two suggestions to accomodate the TV schedule without compromising the game.

Dave
 
DaveK said:
There is a stalemate rule in the World Standardized Rules / BCA rules also, although the strange thing is that it has no number (it just appears after 4.20 Loss of Game so perhaps it is part of 4.20, I dunno). Here is the rule :

STALEMATED GAME
If, after 3 consecutive turns at the table by each player (6 turns total), the referee judges that attempting to pocket or move an object ball will result in loss of game, the balls will be re-racked with the original breaker of the stalemated game breaking again. The stalemate rule may be applied regard-less of the number of balls on the table. Please Note: Three consecutive fouls by one player in 8-ball is not a loss of game.


As John pointed out, the game is old and has a developed set of rules. Why the IPT had to write their own and leave out this important rule is beyond me.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's actually rule 4.21, but the number is irrelevant.

I agree that the IPT should have used established rules. I think it would have lent further credibility to the organization. However, since they didn't, they encountered a scenario that had not been previously considered by the IPT.

If the TD was forced into making a call without a structured set rules being the source of that call, it seems that making up a stalemate rule on the spot would have been a much better decision than forcing a strategically unsound shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top