Another weird happening at the IPT
- Thread starter rackmsuckr
- Start date
If these guys were running over time, then the TD and his staff were right to take action to get things moving along. They've got the whole tournament, and its schedule, to worry about.
Calling a stalemate and saying "start the game over" would likely be to one player's advantage (whoever got the break) over the other player. Telling them to quit playing safe, it sounds like both players were in about the same situation as far as how their balls lay on the table (else they likely wouldn't be having a safety battle), so IMHO that was the more even-handed call.
As far as Timberly's "got to start banking" rule change example - in this case, it was an extreme and probably rare situation. The players put themselves in the state that they were going to hold things up - and basically forced action to be taken. Timberly's example sounded more like what a TD could do on a whim, i.e. the situation on the table not driving the decision, as it was here. Bad analogy IMHO. I understand the reasoning behind being against sudden rule changes, though.
Calling a stalemate and saying "start the game over" would likely be to one player's advantage (whoever got the break) over the other player. Telling them to quit playing safe, it sounds like both players were in about the same situation as far as how their balls lay on the table (else they likely wouldn't be having a safety battle), so IMHO that was the more even-handed call.
As far as Timberly's "got to start banking" rule change example - in this case, it was an extreme and probably rare situation. The players put themselves in the state that they were going to hold things up - and basically forced action to be taken. Timberly's example sounded more like what a TD could do on a whim, i.e. the situation on the table not driving the decision, as it was here. Bad analogy IMHO. I understand the reasoning behind being against sudden rule changes, though.
sniper said:
It sounds like these guys were just tapping balls into rails lightly, obviously trading safety after safety. A two-way shot would move one or more balls around to a far greater extent, making continuing the safety war less likely.
Of course, I can't say for sure - I'm not there and didn't see how the table looked.
T
Timberly
Guest
ScottW said:
My analogy was used in reference to the above quote, not in reference to the actual situation that we're discussing. According to Jake, it's ok for a tournament director to do things on a whim.jjinfla said:
sniper said:
An appropriate definition of safety in this context is a shot where the player doesn't truly attempt to sink a ball. Two-way shots are not safes assuming the normal definition of two-way shot: attempting to make a ball but positioning the cue ball so that if you miss it becomes a safety.
I think what Ursitti/Andrews should have done if the game was in neutral position (i.e. neither player had the clear upper hand) is re-racked the balls to re-play the hill-hill game, and had them lag for break, thus not giving either player an arbitrary advantage. Reracking without relagging gives the breaker an arbitrary advantage that he didn't have before you stepped in, and saying "no safes" gives a huge arbitrary disadvantage to the next player to shoot after you make that rule, assuming no good offensive shot is available. I think relag and rebreak is the only way for the refs to speed up the match without the refs deciding the match.
-Andrew
T
Timberly
Guest
I guess the "Rules subject to change at any time" needs to be looked into a little more.... and clarified... subject to change to a rule that really isn't a rule (ie what happend today) Subject to change meaning they can just go from BCA to APA to TAP rules at any given time.Tom In Cincy said:
How can a player know and understand the rules if they're not only changed mid-game but changed to a rule that otherwise doesn't exist?
T
Timberly
Guest
If it requires corrective action by Deno then it must be nonsense because Deno is an extension of KT and we all know that KT is AKA Jake's higer power.Jimmy M. said:I guess I'm a little unsure of how a safety battle is nonsense.
rackem said:
Rackem, this is no ordinary safety battle. Safety battles can take awhile, but they involve changing advantages after each shot. You can have a 10 minute safety battle, but it often involves one guy pressing a very slight advantage, shot after shot, until it becomes a huge advantage and he starts shooting.
From the description, this was more of a "wait for the other guy to try something crazy" situation. That is why I compared it to the intentional foul example; it appeared as if neither player was willing to try something crazy.
- Steve
jjinfla said:
The trouble with making a decision like this when he did is that it puts the player coming to the table at a disadvantage compared to the player who just played a safety. Imagin being in a safety battle and then when it's your turn a new rule is added saying 'no safeties' ... that would throw a serious monkey wrench into your strategy, and so you must now play an offensive shot and your opponent is likely drooling over the prospect !
It's hard to justify a TD making up rules at hill-hill that tip the balance of the match towards one player, imo.
It is also apparent that the IPT tactic for dealing with slow play is flawed in that it cannot be used at hill-hill. This was foreseeable !
Yes, the TD has the final say, but that does not make any decision 'right' Jake. Believe it or not they are human too and can make mistakes. I believe this decision was a mistake as I explained.
Dave
Last edited:
Steve Lipsky said:
There are safety techniques and then there are 'waiting for the other player to make a mistake or go on the offensive' the latter being a 'delay' tactic which can be considered unsportsman-like.
Either way the players took them selves out of the game by their decision to play 'safe' and let the refs and TD make the decision(s)
gregory said:
Yes it does. Hopefully the IPT will recognize that it was a very poor call and, at the very least, modify the rules so that such a scenario cannot come up again.
Changing the rules during a tournament is simply bad judgement on the TD's part.
Tom In Cincy said:
Tom, you know I always respect your opinions but aren't there certain situations where it isn't the player's fault? It sounds like this happened once in about 17,000 games (number on their site); I'm willing to cut the players a break on this one.
Also, I don't think any player should be forced to take a low-percentage shot when not doing so incurs no penalty.
- Steve
Steve Lipsky 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.
T
Timberly
Guest
It would be nice to know if that were the case or not. We don't know the whole story so it is difficult to pass judgement considering the different variables that we're not aware of. Warning or no warning, I don't know that I'll ever be swayed to agree with changing the rules mid-game. If for no other reason then what Dave pointed out... one guy got the lucky dog award while another got the dog house.Tom In Cincy said:
I like a combination of two suggestions... make 'em lag again and replay the game.... on the practice tables.