calling a hit

[HitHrdNDraw]

I was playing a guy nine-ball the other night some race to 5's for an undisclosed amount of money (not cheap but not super expensive). Anyway, I was about to shoot at a ball that was close to another ball so it was a questionable hit. My opponent asked if he could get someone to watch the hit. A guy came over and stood right next to the table and i proceeded to shoot. After the shot, the hit-watcher guy said it was too close to tell, then my opponent said it was a foul and quickly picked up the cue ball. Was he in the wrong? My opinion is that if you ask someone to watch the hit (it was someone HE selected by the way) and they make a decision then the opponent forfeit's his right to call a foul and must honor the third party's decision. His argument was that he brought the guy in as a second opinion in case he couldn't tell if it was a foul, but that he felt it was a foul and did not need the third party ruling. If I have to deal with a guy standing right next to the table when I shoot then he should have to deal with a decision he felt was wrong or call the hit himself... Right?

 

[curlyscues]

I was playing a guy nine-ball the other night some race to 5's for an undisclosed amount of money (not cheap but not super expensive). Anyway, I was about to shoot at a ball that was close to another ball so it was a questionable hit. My opponent asked if he could get someone to watch the hit. A guy came over and stood right next to the table and i proceeded to shoot. After the shot, the hit-watcher guy said it was too close to tell, then my opponent said it was a foul and quickly picked up the cue ball. Was he in the wrong? My opinion is that if you ask someone to watch the hit (it was someone HE selected by the way) and they make a decision then the opponent forfeit's his right to call a foul and must honor the third party's decision. His argument was that he brought the guy in as a second opinion in case he couldn't tell if it was a foul, but that he felt it was a foul and did not need the third party ruling. If I have to deal with a guy standing right next to the table when I shoot then he should have to deal with a decision he felt was wrong or call the hit himself... Right?

you are right. if he calls in someone to watch the hit then he no longer has any say in the matter. and if it is too close to call, it automaticly goes in favor of the shooter.
M.C.

 

[AZE]

Split shot goes to the shooter.. use that rule to it's fullest potential..

your fault for not dealing with that situation better, but, live and learn.. next time you know.

 

[Klopek]

Define third party role first

You should've laid down the ground rule regarding the third parties role prior to taking your shot. Whether the third parties ruling would be the only consideration or whether it was for back-up purposes only.

Personally, I only would've agreed to letting my opponent's friend call the hit if I could have one of my friends judge the hit. If your opponent is entitled to a second opinion, so are you.

 

[Maniac]

I was playing a guy nine-ball the other night some race to 5's for an undisclosed amount of money (not cheap but not super expensive). Anyway, I was about to shoot at a ball that was close to another ball so it was a questionable hit. My opponent asked if he could get someone to watch the hit. A guy came over and stood right next to the table and i proceeded to shoot. After the shot, the hit-watcher guy said it was too close to tell, then my opponent said it was a foul and quickly picked up the cue ball. Was he in the wrong? My opinion is that if you ask someone to watch the hit (it was someone HE selected by the way) and they make a decision then the opponent forfeit's his right to call a foul and must honor the third party's decision. His argument was that he brought the guy in as a second opinion in case he couldn't tell if it was a foul, but that he felt it was a foul and did not need the third party ruling. If I have to deal with a guy standing right next to the table when I shoot then he should have to deal with a decision he felt was wrong or call the hit himself... Right?

RIGHT!!! BTW, I think you should've rounded up a posse, hung the opponent up by his feet bare-naked, clubbed him with a cane and took all his money !!!
I don't have much patience for peckerheads like that !!!

Maniac

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You should've laid down the ground rule regarding the third parties role prior to taking your shot. Whether the third parties ruling would be the only consideration or whether it was for back-up purposes only.

Personally, I only would've agreed to letting my opponent's friend call the hit if I could have one of my friends judge the hit. If your opponent is entitled to a second opinion, so are you.

I disagree with this. It's implied that if you acquire the services of a third-party, their ruling is absolute. I can say, I've been gambling at pool for nearly 20 years and would have definitely flipped-out if my opponent just said, "foul" and picked-up the cue-ball inspite of his friend's ruling.

You don't need to establish what this third-party's role is. It's already established. His job is to say "foul" or "no foul" and that's that. If he says it's too close to call, it should be interpreted as meaning, "It's too close to call it a foul".

Getting a committee to make the ruling is pretty ridiculous.

 

[scottycoyote]

yeah im on your side on this one.........you bring in a 3rd party to call it, then both of you IMO are now bound by the 3rd party ruling.......you for accepting the 3rd party guys input into the game, your opponent for bringing him in. If the guy says its too close to call, then you keep shooting.

 

[hillbilly]

3rd party ruling is always final.

 

[briandlau]

You got robbed.

 

[stick8]

call hit

Your ist mastake was to get some dumbass to call a hit ,ask him does he or she know the rules of calling hit, any player with any knoliage of the rules would never say,{to close to call} as you have been told the split hit goes to shooter> end of call!!!!!

 

[rackem]

Who won the match?

 

[Klopek]

I disagree with this. It's implied that if you acquire the services of a third-party, their ruling is absolute. I can say, I've been gambling at pool for nearly 20 years and would have definitely flipped-out if my opponent just said, "foul" and picked-up the cue-ball inspite of his friend's ruling.

You don't need to establish what this third-party's role is. It's already established. His job is to say "foul" or "no foul" and that's that. If he says it's too close to call, it should be interpreted as meaning, "It's too close to call it a foul".

Getting a committee to make the ruling is pretty ridiculous.

I should've been more clear in my initial post, I failed to get my point across. What I meant to say was; before the OP took his shot he should have made it absolutely clear to his opponent that whatever the third party ruled counted. This would have avoided the problem

Obviously the opponent is going to try something fishy if he asks one of his friends to judge the hit. This was the real mistake, letting the guy use his friend. The third party should be someone neutral to both players, someone impartial. Both players should have arranged who would make any calls beforehand.

About the commitee, I meant if he's going to use a friend as a back-up, then I want a friend as well. Should never have been an issue though, since an impartial observer should've made the call.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

What I meant to say was; before the OP took his shot he should have made it absolutely clear to his opponent that whatever the third party ruled counted.

But that's what I mean... When you get someone to rule over a shot, that's it. It's automatically out of both players' hands. There should be no need to explain. If my opponent overrules his recruited-referee, I would simply flip-out.

I know what you're saying. You want to protect yourself. I agree. You protect yourself by flipping-out completely. You call the guy a cheat, you threaten to quit the set and you quit him after the set up or down. F**k that. Getting one third-party is enough. There is no explanation needed.

 

[Klopek]

I know what you're saying. You want to protect yourself. I agree. You protect yourself by flipping-out completely. You call the guy a cheat, you threaten to quit the set and you quit him after the set up or down. F**k that. Getting one third-party is enough. There is no explanation needed.

$hit man, I'd be scared I'd get a knife stuck in my neck.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

$hit man, I'd be scared I'd get a knife stuck in my neck.

I know you're kidding but if you feel uncomfortable about flipping out on your opponent, you shouldn't have made the game in the first place. You should never be intimidated. Flipping out is what keeps them from pulling crap.

 

[PoolBum]

I was playing a guy nine-ball the other night some race to 5's for an undisclosed amount of money (not cheap but not super expensive). Anyway, I was about to shoot at a ball that was close to another ball so it was a questionable hit. My opponent asked if he could get someone to watch the hit. A guy came over and stood right next to the table and i proceeded to shoot. After the shot, the hit-watcher guy said it was too close to tell, then my opponent said it was a foul and quickly picked up the cue ball. Was he in the wrong? My opinion is that if you ask someone to watch the hit (it was someone HE selected by the way) and they make a decision then the opponent forfeit's his right to call a foul and must honor the third party's decision. His argument was that he brought the guy in as a second opinion in case he couldn't tell if it was a foul, but that he felt it was a foul and did not need the third party ruling. If I have to deal with a guy standing right next to the table when I shoot then he should have to deal with a decision he felt was wrong or call the hit himself... Right?

Your opponent fouled when he grabbed the cueball. You get ball in hand. I don't think I've ever played anyone who didn't understand that when someone is called in to watch the shot, their ruling is final.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Your opponent fouled when he grabbed the cueball. You get ball in hand. I don't think I've ever played anyone who didn't understand that when someone is called in to watch the shot, their ruling is final.

Thank you, sir. My point EXACTLY.

 

[cuenut]

The minute he called for another person to call the chot, he forfeits his right to contest that person's judgement. If the third party says that it is too close to call, you get to keep shooting. Your opponent has just given you ball in hand if he proceeds to touch the ball. If he refused to do this, I would pull up and walk out with my money, unless I was pretty far ahead and wanted to keep going dispite his antics.

 

[MrLucky]

Right answer IMHO!

I disagree with this. It's implied that if you acquire the services of a third-party, their ruling is absolute. I can say, I've been gambling at pool for nearly 20 years and would have definitely flipped-out if my opponent just said, "foul" and picked-up the cue-ball inspite of his friend's ruling.

You don't need to establish what this third-party's role is. It's already established. His job is to say "foul" or "no foul" and that's that. If he says it's too close to call, it should be interpreted as meaning, "It's too close to call it a foul".

Getting a committee to make the ruling is pretty ridiculous.

I've been in this situation and when it is too close to call the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt!