Bank Finals Update

realkingcobra said:
Because John, right after Shane picked up the 7 ball out of the corner pocket...to spot the ball, John came up to the table with the balls he'd scored with and placed them on the table...in the confusion, Shane thought he'd won because of that...so he then picked up the cue ball as Ken came to the table with the rest of the balls...only to discover that...he'd been forfeited because he'd picked up the cue ball, but only AFTER John had brought his 4 balls to the table and placed them on the table......hmmmm;)
Click to expand...

What a way to lose. Ouch.
 
sjm said:
I sat ringside for this one and let me confirm what I saw and give you my interpretation of what happened.

First of all, I heard Shane call four rails shooting from the kitchen at a ball that was on or near the spot during the second set with Morra leading 1-0. When Shane made that ball two rails, he raked the cue ball as if he'd won the rack. Morra then, quite correctly, commented that the call had been four rails and not two. Referee Ken Schuman asked Shane whether he had called the shot four rails and Shane said yes. As the balls had been raked by Shane, the rack was correctly awarded to Morra. Ken showed a firm grasp of the rules that applied to the situation and Shane, knowing he had erred, did not complain and, in my opinion, exhibited a high level of professionalism in moving on to the next rack. Shane continued to fight hard and pulled to within 2-1 quickly. He then led 4 balls to 3 in the next rack when a long bank on the four ball appeared to roll off on him, denying him a double hill score. Subsequently, a couple of scratches by Shane played Morra back into the rack, and Morra made a couple of phenomenal shots to get out of the rack and win the title.

Morra showed a very high gear in the banks event from beginning to end and was a worthy champion.

Shane's runnerup finish, I suspect, will put him in prime position to defend his all-around title here at the Derby, so his fine effort may well go to good use.

It was John Morra's day, and all I can say is well played, John!
Click to expand...

I was guessing that Shane had changed his mind from 4 rails to 2 rails and didn't/forgot to mention it.
Either way, it really seemed to change the dynamics of the match afterwards. Both players seemed to drop a gear or two.
 
Is there no rule on concession of a game in bank pool such as in 9 ball?

If your opponent comes to the table with his balls, how is this not a concession, similar to if an opponent comes to the table when you are on the 9 ball.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
I'd like to see a diagram of the layout when Shane called that 4 rail bank.
Click to expand...

Cue ball in or near the jaws of the corner pocket on the head rail to Shane's right.

Object ball on the foot spot.

4 rails to the corner pocket on the foot rail to Shane's left.

2 rails back to the pocket over which Shane is shooting.
 
AtLarge said:
Cue ball in or near the jaws of the corner pocket on the head rail to Shane's right.

Object ball on the foot spot.

4 rails to the corner pocket on the foot rail to Shane's left.

2 rails back to the pocket over which Shane is shooting.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but why wouldn't Shane just play a one rail cross corner bank off the side rail, or a one rail bank the long way? You didn't mention anything about interfering balls, were there any that precluded these more simple shots?

I'm not a bank pool expert, so maybe the answer is the shot I'm thinking about is a sucker shot for some reason.

Thanks.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Thanks, but why wouldn't Shane just play a one rail cross corner bank off the side rail, or a one rail bank the long way? You didn't mention anything about interfering balls, were there any that precluded these more simple shots?

I'm not a bank pool expert, so maybe the answer is the shot I'm thinking about is a sucker shot for some reason.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The ball score at the time was 4-3 Shane, so only two OB's remained on the table. And I think the other one was on or near the foot rail fairly close to the left corner pocket (as Shane looked at it). Sorry I don't remember it exactly.

I'm no bank pool expert, either, but I take it the straight-back bank from Shane's position is very difficult. Maybe the 4-rail shot offered better prospects of denying John position if Shane missed? I really don't know what was in Shane's mind, and his subsequent brain spasm makes you wonder even more.

I just watched Shane squeeze by Chris Gentile in a 3rd-round one-pocket match. Shane did not look to be at his best yet today, so it will be interesting to see how he does the rest of the week.
 
Last edited:
I am delighted for Johnny Morra.
It feels like John Daley winning his first major.
I'm not one of them 'touchy/feely' guys.....but I hugged Johnny's father
when the last ball dropped.

But I also feel compelled to mention how hard luck Shane was in the last
game. Two or three long banks were in until the last diamond. They rolled
out about two inches.
But the worst roll he got was on a short bank 8-ball. As soon as the ball
left the rail, it was in. About a foot from the pocket, it looked like it hit
a piece of chalk
Shane was 'in the one hole' on all these shots to make it two-all.
 
I'm no banks expert either but I've seen this 4 rail spot shot a lot. Several good players choose this shot over the straight back one railer. Not sure why that is exactly. I'm thinking the straight back hit requires a perfect hit. The 4 railer is more of a feel shot, where you just have to get the speed down. I could be wrong though. Maybe a banker will chime in. Oh wait....they're all at Derby City.....I think we're on our own.
 
This explains why Shane picked up the cueball. If John came to the table with his balls that is a concession of game. So the ruling should have been John forfeited the game.

realkingcobra said:
Because John, right after Shane picked up the 7 ball out of the corner pocket...to spot the ball, John came up to the table with the balls he'd scored with and placed them on the table...in the confusion, Shane thought he'd won because of that...so he then picked up the cue ball as Ken came to the table with the rest of the balls...only to discover that...he'd been forfeited because he'd picked up the cue ball, but only AFTER John had brought his 4 balls to the table and placed them on the table......hmmmm;)
Click to expand...
 
Waiting on Shane's interview...

.. I hope at some point a mag or stream or someone sits down with SVB to hear his honest thoughts on what happened... Ken was right there, talked to players and made a call...

If he raked because of John's actions I am sure he would have said something to Ken... maybe an interview with Ken would also help...
 
Accu-Stats Video

Well the Accu-Stats Video from 2012 Derby City are in. I've reviewed the controversial shot in the second game of the second and final set.
1) People have stated Shane raked the cue ball or picked it up.
WRONG - Ken Schumann picked it up and is show cleaning it and returns it to the table.

Events as they happened:
1) Shane shoots 2 rail shot pockets the winning ball. Shane removes ball from pocket and does small shake of head.
2) Shane moves to the foot of the table.
3) John Morra brings his balls to the table and places them on the table.
and at the same time Ken Schumann brings Shane's balls to the table places them on the table and picks up the cue ball.
4) John and Ken move back from the table
5) Shane now moves the 6 ball setting in the jaws of the left bottom pocket (as standing to break).
6) Someone off camera and to John's right says something. John comes back to the table where Shane is racking and says something and Ken joins him at the table.
7) Discussion starts and then Ken announces loss of game due to Shane moving a ball.

I would think the bringing of the balls to the table should have been concession of the game. The only ball moved before that was the pocketed ball.

Hope everyone gets to review the video. This starts at 50:30 into the final set.
 
wrickyb said:
Well the Accu-Stats Video from 2012 Derby City are in. I've reviewed the controversial shot in the second game of the second and final set.
1) People have stated Shane raked the cue ball or picked it up.
WRONG - Ken Schumann picked it up and is show cleaning it and returns it to the table.

Events as they happened:
1) Shane shoots 2 rail shot pockets the winning ball. Shane removes ball from pocket and does small shake of head.
2) Shane moves to the foot of the table.
3) John Morra brings his balls to the table and places them on the table.
and at the same time Ken Schumann brings Shane's balls to the table places them on the table and picks up the cue ball.
4) John and Ken move back from the table
5) Shane now moves the 6 ball setting in the jaws of the left bottom pocket (as standing to break).
6) Someone off camera and to John's right says something. John comes back to the table where Shane is racking and says something and Ken joins him at the table.
7) Discussion starts and then Ken announces loss of game due to Shane moving a ball.

I would think the bringing of the balls to the table should have been concession of the game. The only ball moved before that was the pocketed ball.

Hope everyone gets to review the video. This starts at 50:30 into the final set.
Click to expand...

Shane claimed the 2 railer when he called it 4 is the bottom line here. You can't blame everyone else for something one person caused himself.
 
backplaying said:
Shane claimed the 2 railer when he called it 4 is the bottom line here. You can't blame everyone else for something one person caused himself.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Shane was the unintentional initiator of some deception here, and had he gained from it, I would have felt that the integrity of the game would have been compromised. Ken Schuman showed why he's considered a superstar of his trade.
 
sjm said:
Exactly right. Shane was the unintentional initiator of some deception here, and had he gained from it, I would have felt that the integrity of the game would have been compromised. Ken Schuman showed why he's considered a superstar of his trade.
Click to expand...

I was rail side when it happened and have reviewed the video and strongly disagree. I feel Shane was on the wrong end of a BAD CALL. It should not have been loss of game. Greg Sullivan has since put it in place this would not be loss of game but the balls would be put back and continued.

Shane came to the foot of the table. At that point John Morra brought his made balls and put them on the table AND Ken retrieved Shane's made balls and placed them on the table and Picked up the cue ball. At that point Shane swapped his shooting cue for his break cue and started to rack. Since all balls had been put on the table by his oppoient and the Turnment Directory it was indicated he had won the game. THEN some one setting behind Shane's side said something to John who then got back out of his chair and came to the table. Ken then came back to the table with the cue ball. This is when the discussion started. BUT should have been too late it should have been game over or at least the ball spotted, the hanger replaced and cue ball back in position. If this could not be done the game should have been played over. It was not just Shane moving balls all 3 moved balls. I feel it affected the out come of the match.
 
wrickyb said:
I was rail side when it happened and have reviewed the video and strongly disagree. I feel Shane was on the wrong end of a BAD CALL. It should not have been loss of game. Greg Sullivan has since put it in place this would not be loss of game but the balls would be put back and continued.

Shane came to the foot of the table. At that point John Morra brought his made balls and put them on the table AND Ken retrieved Shane's made balls and placed them on the table and Picked up the cue ball. At that point Shane swapped his shooting cue for his break cue and started to rack. Since all balls had been put on the table by his oppoient and the Turnment Directory it was indicated he had won the game. THEN some one setting behind Shane's side said something to John who then got back out of his chair and came to the table. Ken then came back to the table with the cue ball. This is when the discussion started. BUT should have been too late it should have been game over or at least the ball spotted, the hanger replaced and cue ball back in position. If this could not be done the game should have been played over. It was not just Shane moving balls all 3 moved balls. I feel it affected the out come of the match.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was railside, too. I heard Shane call it four rails and I saw his inappropirate reaction to making it two rails, which, by his own admission, constituted a brain fart and led to some confusion that could have been avoided. In the Saturday night ceremony following the nine ball event, in which Shane was awarded the all-around, he made it clear in the interview that he believed he'd made a mistake and that Morra was the deserving champion. I think he was right.

Nonetheless, this is clearly a matter of opinion and I respect yours. We can agree to disagree here, but for me, the lasting image of the moment was the grace with which Shane conducted himself after this incident. I suspect you'd agree with me that he displayed outstanding professionalism in the matter.
 
Just watched the Accu-stats DVD of this match and what a cluster that situation was. I really think it was a tough call on SVB. I had typed out what exactly happened, but realized it had already been laid out by others. I can't get over that he shook his head "no" indicating he missed the call, slow rolled the 3 to the spot to be spotted, walked back to his seat... then turned around and saw his opponent and the tournament director dumping all the other balls back onto the table ... yet he gets called for the foul and loss of game.
 
Last edited:
wrickyb said:
I was rail side when it happened and have reviewed the video and strongly disagree. I feel Shane was on the wrong end of a BAD CALL. It should not have been loss of game. Greg Sullivan has since put it in place this would not be loss of game but the balls would be put back and continued.

Shane came to the foot of the table. At that point John Morra brought his made balls and put them on the table AND Ken retrieved Shane's made balls and placed them on the table and Picked up the cue ball. At that point Shane swapped his shooting cue for his break cue and started to rack. Since all balls had been put on the table by his oppoient and the Turnment Directory it was indicated he had won the game. THEN some one setting behind Shane's side said something to John who then got back out of his chair and came to the table. Ken then came back to the table with the cue ballNOPE. This is when the discussion started. BUT should have been too late it should have been game over or at least the ball spotted, the hanger replaced and cue ball back in position. If this could not be done the game should have been played over. It was not just Shane moving balls all 3 moved ballsThey did not.. I feel it affected the out come of the matchYou are incorrect..
Click to expand...

PaulieB said:
Just watched the Accu-stats DVD of this match and what a cluster that situation was. I really think it was a tough call on SVB. I had typed out what exactly happened, but realized it had already been laid out by others. I can't get over that he shook his head "no" indicating he missed the call, slow rolled the 3 to the spot to be spotted, walked back to his seatNo he didn't, he got his break cue.... then turned around and saw his opponent and the tournament director dumping all the other balls back onto the table ... yet he gets called for the foul and loss of game.
Click to expand...

wrickyb, you ain't too bright.

PaulieB, you don't have a clue in the world.

http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6781&highlight=chronology+cheater

ONB
 
Here is what does not make sense to me. If SVB called 4 and it went two, and the ref asked if he called 4 and he said yes.....how could he have thought he won? I mean really? It is not like there was a commercial break to forget and let your mind wander?

What am I missing?
 
phil dade said:
Here is what does not make sense to me. If SVB called 4 and it went two, and the ref asked if he called 4 and he said yes.....how could he have thought he won? I mean really? It is not like there was a commercial break to forget and let your mind wander?

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You didn't miss anything. SVB tried to cheat and got caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top