Bizarre Refereeing situations in Mosconi Cup

spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I was watching some Mosconi Cup 2015 matches.
In the Skyler Woodward vs Karl Boyes match, a few refereeing situations struck me as both bizarre and funny-

1) https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=18
After they lagged, the referee Ken Shumann said Skyler had lost the lag cos he only started lag after Boyes had finished his lag. What was that obscure rule about? Did not even know there is such a stupid rule. Why does it matter if other player lagged slower - why penalise him?

2) https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=635
Skyler gave up BIH. Boyes took CB and was trying to place it between 2 and 3 and Shumann suddenly called Foul saying Boyes was trying to use CB to measure. The 2 and 3 was so close to the rail and there was nothing to measure using the CB. Clearly, poor Shumann had a brain fart cos he later reversed his decision after realising his mistake.

3) The worst thing was in process of reviewing his decision, Shumann discussed and deferred to the 2 captains and asked for their agreement before he reversed his Foul decision.
Shouldn't he be consulting with other referees like Nigel Rees or panel of referees instead of captains?. Since when did captains have say in refereeing decisions?

:D
 
Regarding the first situation, WPA rule is clear. You cannot win the lag if
"a player’s ball is struck after the other ball has touched the foot cushion".

I don't think the rule is obscure. Presumably it is in place to prevent a player from trying to get a read on the speed of the table by watching his opponent's lag then shooting.
 
spartan said:
So I was watching some Mosconi Cup 2015 matches.
In the Skyler Woodward vs Karl Boyes match, a few refereeing situations struck me as both bizarre and funny-

1) https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=18
After they lagged, the referee Ken Shumann said Skyler had lost the lag cos he only started lag after Boyes had finished his lag. What was that obscure rule about? Did not even know there is such a stupid rule. Why does it matter if other player lagged slower - why penalise him?

2) https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=635
Skyler gave up BIH. Boyes took CB and was trying to place it between 2 and 3 and Shumann suddenly called Foul saying Boyes was trying to use CB to measure. The 2 and 3 was so close to the rail and there was nothing to measure using the CB. Clearly, poor Shumann had a brain fart cos he later reversed his decision after realising his mistake.

3) The worst thing was in process of reviewing his decision, Shumann discussed and deferred to the 2 captains and asked for their agreement before he reversed his Foul decision.
Shouldn't he be consulting with other referees like Nigel Rees or panel of referees instead of captains?. Since when did captains have say in refereeing decisions?

:D
Click to expand...
Both situations sucked, but, IMO, they're excusable. They don't come up often, but both point to existing rules that at the initial pressure-of-the-moment, Ken piped up.

1) As Gideon pointed out, the rules state that you cannot start your lag after the opponent's lag has touched the *foot* cushion. That's the rule, and it's been in the WPA rulebook for a bit. So, Ken knew there was a violation of some sort, being a National referee. But, he needed to consult the book, considering this doesn't happen all that much. Rules say the players lag again (Rule 1.2)

2) When I first saw this, I also thought to myself is he going to measure the gap?, which would be a foul of course, as we all know, yes? The rule was explicit up until 2008 or so, but the current WPA rules are rewritten as inclusion (thus, inferred exclusion) of usage of equipment. It isn't explicitly allowed to use a cueball to measure a gap, so it's not allowed. I'm not thrilled with the rewrite, but it still holds true.

I'm not saying that Ken should have called the foul, but both Ken and Karl should know the rule here so as not to violate it or inadvertently call a violation when the intent wasn't known. So, IMO, Karl wasn't blameless since it was an obvious occurrence that his motion could be (mis)construed as a measurement of the gap. Karl says he was placing, not measuring. I believe him. Ken believed him. Pressure of the moment made this worse. I'm not sure there was a better outcome here. If we know that this motion can be misconstrued as a foul, I think the player should announce his intention, rather than leave it a referee or the opponent to pipe up.

"I'm not measuring to see if the cueball will pass the tight gap; I'm actually trying to place it in this tight spot."

Certainly on, as an example, tough-to-see safeties or hits, don't you tell your opponent your intention so there's no question what you're doing?

Freddie <~~~ feels bad for Ken
 
Last edited:
Boyes getting all pissy after receiving back bih was the strangest part of it all, then again hes known for poor sportsmanship
 
The measuring call was just a bad call. Boyes wasn't even holding the cue ball over the spot where the 2-ball would pass to go in the corner, he was holding it between the 2 and 3. And the rule is so tricky that you better be really sure that's what's happening before you call it. I didn't see talking to the coaches as a problem - he was just explaining to them what happened.
 
BRussell said:
The measuring call was just a bad call. Boyes wasn't even holding the cue ball over the spot where the 2-ball would pass to go in the corner, he was holding it between the 2 and 3. And the rule is so tricky that you better be really sure that's what's happening before you call it. I didn't see talking to the coaches as a problem - he was just explaining to them what happened.
Click to expand...

I need to look again, I thought at that moment he might be using the cueball to see if it (the cuebal) would pass.
 
Yeah you definitely have to hit your ball on the lag before your opponent touches the cushion... within reason. You can't be a dick and blast a stun shot at the foot cushion while your opponent is on his first warm-up stroke, trying to win the lag on that technicality.

The rule, first, stops you from watching your opponent to get the speed of the table and second, it makes you give your best effort, so you can't wait to see if your opponent came up short so you can play it softer and give yourself more room for error.

Ken is usually very sharp and I think he pays attention to things even the players miss, it's actually impressive considering he is always so mellow you think he's half asleep. So if he thought Boyes was measuring, I'd hear him out, he can always listen to the protest and consult with the team captains. In many formats, you ask the players and then captains to sort out a dispute before the referee is asked to rule, although the referee can stop play and bring a potential foul to attention.
 
In the lagging situation he should have waited until both players were at the table to begin the lag. Boyes appeared to take advantage of the situation by lagging before Woodward was ready.
 
Gorramjayne said:
Yeah you definitely have to hit your ball on the lag before your opponent touches the cushion... within reason. You can't be a dick and blast a stun shot at the foot cushion while your opponent is on his first warm-up stroke, trying to win the lag on that technicality. ...
Click to expand...

As Cornerman said above, the rule is that they lag again in that situation, not that the laggard lagger loses.
 
I remember that moment well but it is much clearer to see it now then when I was a dozen rows up. I felt bad for Mr. Shumann also but IMHO Ken should have taken the cue ball from Karl when it first happened and not let Karl continue to place the ball in the gap while he went to explain to the Euro coach.
 
spartan said:
So I was watching some Mosconi Cup 2015 matches.
In the Skyler Woodward vs Karl Boyes match, a few refereeing situations struck me as both bizarre and funny-

1) https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=18
After they lagged, the referee Ken Shumann said Skyler had lost the lag cos he only started lag after Boyes had finished his lag. What was that obscure rule about? Did not even know there is such a stupid rule. Why does it matter if other player lagged slower - why penalise him?
Karl got robbed...Skyler lost the lag outright the first time, legal or not...then he CAN WIN it on the second try...WTH?
2) https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=635
Skyler gave up BIH. Boyes took CB and was trying to place it between 2 and 3 and Shumann suddenly called Foul saying Boyes was trying to use CB to measure. The 2 and 3 was so close to the rail and there was nothing to measure using the CB. Clearly, poor Shumann had a brain fart cos he later reversed his decision after realising his mistake.

3) The worst thing was in process of reviewing his decision, Shumann discussed and deferred to the 2 captains and asked for their agreement before he reversed his Foul decision.
Shouldn't he be consulting with other referees like Nigel Rees or panel of referees instead of captains?. Since when did captains have say in refereeing decisions?

:D
Click to expand...

When Karl has BIH, why wouldn't he play the two/three carom? WTH? AGAIN
 
Last edited:
smashmouth said:
Boyes getting all pissy after receiving back bih was the strangest part of it all, then again hes known for poor sportsmanship
Click to expand...

lol
Boysie loves to attract attention. That is why his nickname is now "Box Office" :D

And he sure knows how to party.

https://twitter.com/karlboyes/status/540933450463981568

B4HIGZyIIAApnqj.jpg



:D
 
Now I finally know how to win a lag......Lag at Break Speed before you opponent has a chance to strike the cue ball.

Oh never mind, only our local guy Nig would do such a thing.

JoeyA


GideonF said:
Regarding the first situation, WPA rule is clear. You cannot win the lag if
"a player’s ball is struck after the other ball has touched the foot cushion".

I don't think the rule is obscure. Presumably it is in place to prevent a player from trying to get a read on the speed of the table by watching his opponent's lag then shooting.
Click to expand...
 
Situation was awkward. I've seen this whole match before and the first time I thought Boyes was trying to see if it fit too. If Boyes wasn't such a whiny baby about it, play would have continued and that would have been it. When Ken called time out, Boyes should have stopped. I'm assuming that's why he had to place it again? I thought Ken handled it very professionally and gracefully.
 
spartan said:
3) The worst thing was in process of reviewing his decision, Shumann discussed and deferred to the 2 captains and asked for their agreement before he reversed his Foul decision.
Shouldn't he be consulting with other referees like Nigel Rees or panel of referees instead of captains?. Since when did captains have say in refereeing decisions?

:D
Click to expand...

"discussed and deferred"
"asked for their agreement"

That never happened. He told them why he called the foul (he thought Karl was measuring with the cueball) and why he reversed the call (because Karl showed him he was simply placing the ball).

But if it makes your life more exciting to put words in other peoples mouths or invent drama, don't let reality stop you :grin-square:
 
Wasn't the foul called when Karl placed the ball then picked it back up. It was a double move that was odd, and sparked Ken to call the foul. Most players place the ball then roll it a touch to either side using their finger or cue.

The foul was called because I do believe Karl went to place it, saw it was a bad spot (by measurement of the placement) then went to pull it back up. The funny move triggered the foul call.

I agreed with Ken. But I know I'm biased :grin-square: go USA!
 
Cardigan Kid said:
Wasn't the foul called when Karl placed the ball then picked it back up. It was a double move that was odd, and sparked Ken to call the foul. Most players place the ball then roll it a touch to either side using their finger or cue.

The foul was called because I do believe Karl went to place it, saw it was a bad spot (by measurement of the placement) then went to pull it back up. The funny move triggered the foul call.

I agreed with Ken. But I know I'm biased :grin-square: go USA!
Click to expand...

I think he tried to roll it in, saw there wasn't room, and then placed it from the top.
 
Just my opinion..............This rule should be changed.

"IF", when Karl Boyes was trying to "place" the cue ball, what would happen if it didn't fit? Oh wait, that would be measuring. :slap:

Personally, I think measuring is part of the game. We measure when we make estimates of whether a ball will pass or not even if we don't use another object to measure with. Players should be allowed to use any equipment that is part of the regular game to measure, imo.

When some players estimate (measure) the center of the ghost ball by placing their tip 1/2 of a ball distance away from the object ball, that is measuring.

This measuring business is bull-shit imo. Pocket billiards is a game of measuring/estimating. Why shouldn't the tools of the trade be allowed to measure? (I think the rules need to be changed)

It is also obvious that Karl was enjoying himself, playing the victim in this particular charade. (and that's ok too, I guess, if you're into that kind of thing)

Ken took a hit for the pool world, apologized and admitted that he may have made a mistake but Karl milked it for all it was worth. (but I can live with that) When Karl started laughing at his audience's behavior, were I in Ken's shoes, I most likely would have gone off on Karl. Lol
JoeyA


Cardigan Kid said:
Wasn't the foul called when Karl placed the ball then picked it back up. It was a double move that was odd, and sparked Ken to call the foul. Most players place the ball then roll it a touch to either side using their finger or cue.

The foul was called because I do believe Karl went to place it, saw it was a bad spot (by measurement of the placement) then went to pull it back up. The funny move triggered the foul call.

I agreed with Ken. But I know I'm biased :grin-square: go USA!
Click to expand...
 
shinobi said:
"discussed and deferred"
"asked for their agreement"

That never happened. He told them why he called the foul (he thought Karl was measuring with the cueball) and why he reversed the call (because Karl showed him he was simply placing the ball).

But if it makes your life more exciting to put words in other peoples mouths or invent drama, don't let reality stop you :grin-square:
Click to expand...

Maybe you did not hear this exchange/ discussion
https://youtu.be/_7Bi7-2T0vI?t=665
Ken said something like he is trying to place it but I thought he was trying to measure it to see if it would fit

Marcus Chamat: "He's placing it"

Ken: "ok, ok"

Ken to Karl: "Time out. I am going to let you go but I am just going to explain to other captain"

So it looks Ken decided to reverse his decision after hearing from Chamat?
I like Ken but if it was Michaela Tabb, she would have discussed with other ref, Nigel Rees and played back video if necessary and then annnounced that she made a mistake and am reversing her decision
:D

I am not sure such drama will make for a good TV series that I can shop around to the small cable stations though :D


JoeyA said:
It is also obvious that Karl was enjoying himself, playing the victim in this particular charade. (and that's ok too, I guess, if you're into that kind of thing)

Ken took a hit for the pool world, apologized and admitted that he may have made a mistake but Karl milked it for all it was worth. (but I can live with that) When Karl started laughing at his audience's behavior, were I in Ken's shoes, I most likely would have gone off on Karl. Lol
[/COLOR][/B]JoeyA
Click to expand...

Box Office Boyes was being a douche primadonna and rubbing it into poor Ken :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top