Danny Harriman Controversy

[Robroy]

Johnny was upset because of how it looked to our sport. Danny did what he thought was fair, he followed the guidelines in the rules. Johnny also knew the rules but chose not to show disrespect to the sport. Both of them clearly had different thoughts on the ruling.
BTW Nick Varner and Mike Sigel hopped up

 

[jay helfert]

Well, whatever it was originally, the rule is *now* one foot on the floor. With regard to "the oldest rule" issue, on the streaming coverage today, Deno told Varner that he (Deno) had researched the question and found the rule against climbing on the table dating back to 1685 (I believe it was 1685, and I'm certain it was "16something").

-- jwp

Yes I remember seeing that rule in Shakespeares Rules for Pool. He wrote that right after Hamlet.

 

[jay helfert]

The ref is the one who made the mistake in the Harriman controversy. The ref is not supposed to explain a rule to a player or answer a question BEFORE the shot. The player shoots the shot, and THEN the ref makes a ruling. It is up to the player to know the rules. The ref is not supposed to explain the rules or give any indication before a shot. Now, if the ref had said to Harriman, "Just make your shot and then I make a call" (like he should have), I doubt that Harriman would have climbed on the table. By the way, I agree that one-foot-on-the-floor should be a universal rule because it protects the equipment.

Hey, you're a good ref. Consider yourself hired!

 

[recoveryjones]

I'm surprised that several people here feel that the "one foot on the floor" rule is a bad one. I respectfully disagree. I don't know how that rule originated, but I have an argument for why it should stay: It greatly reduces the risk of someone sitting on the cushion and causing damage to it.

A lot of casual pool players in the bars and poolhalls probably don't even realize that they could mess up the cushion like that, however, most of them do know the foot-on-floor rule, fortunately. I'm glad the IPT changed their rules to include this one. If they continued to leave that rule out and if it started catching on, eventually it might not be good for poolhall owners.

I don't think Danny was out of line for what he did. He didn't make the rules. I don't know why some are saying it is morally or ethically wrong to climb on the table. Its not unethical, any more than playing a masse or jump shot is. Yes, you can damage the equipment if you don't know what you're doing, or if you're not careful. Therefore, it is unethical to do it in a poolhall, for example, without permission. That doesn't apply here. He had permission. Its up to the people in charge to make the rules. Its up to the players to follow them.

Also, if a rule is left out by accident, and its brought to the attention of the officials, I don't understand what is stopping them from making an announcement that there was an error in the rule book and from this point forward such-and-such a rule is in effect. All this drama for nothing, in my opinion. At least we got RJ's funny song out of it.

Oh, and Johnny was out of line, IMO. Hopefully, it was just a reaction and he didn't really mean it. I'd assume that all the players felt a lot of pressure out there, and he might have just misdirected his frustrations with this unorthodox rule. It'd be nice if he would apologize to Danny for it, IMO.

Great post.Also thanks for the compliments on my song, much appreciated.

Until I read this full thread and heard what I did in my thread, I had no idea that Varner and Parica had used the rule loophole before Danny did.If I would have had that info, I wouldn't have singled out Danny and would have instead changed the lyrics to that 70's tune called, "Hey Hey We're the Monkees", by the band called "The Monkee's"

I was thinking of penning a new one out, however, I think I'll go humor some politician instead.They seem to have broader shoulders than us pool players.
RJ

 

[jjinfla]

After seeing pictures (#61 & #65) of Gabe Owen on Inside Pool.com forum up on the table, kneeling and taking a shot, I have to make a complete reversal of my opinion.

It is nothing but dissing your opponent and the IPT.

It sure is no way for professional pool players to behave. They do want to be called professional athletes, do they not?

Take a look at the pictures. Is that the way they thank the IPT? Or Kevin? Seems to me they are saying, "Up yours Kevin"

Yeah, Archer was right not to shake Danny's hand. He didn't want to get it contaminated.


Jake

 

[vagabond]

They do want to be called professional athletes, do they not?

Jake

Unless One has the ATHLETIC abilty one will NOT be able to do such a feat of climbing the table.Only those players who can climb should be called professional athletes.

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

The ref is the one who made the mistake in the Harriman controversy. The ref is not supposed to explain a rule to a player or answer a question BEFORE the shot. The player shoots the shot, and THEN the ref makes a ruling. It is up to the player to know the rules. The ref is not supposed to explain the rules or give any indication before a shot. Now, if the ref had said to Harriman, "Just make your shot and then I make a call" (like he should have), I doubt that Harriman would have climbed on the table. By the way, I agree that one-foot-on-the-floor should be a universal rule because it protects the equipment.

I strongly disagree with your statement. I believe that a referee should explain a rule if asked by either player prior to a/the shot. I've had players ask me about shooting through a ball and also shooting at a ball less than a chalk's distance from the cueball. I will explain the rules refering to a particular circumstance before the shot is taken. I believe that questioning the rules on a particular shot beforehand is allowable..... imo
Doug
(paging Bob Jewett)

 

[sjm]

I strongly disagree with your statement. I believe that a referee should explain a rule if asked by either player prior to a/the shot. I've had players ask me about shooting through a ball and also shooting at a ball less than a chalk's distance from the cueball. I will explain the rules refering to a particular circumstance before the shot is taken. I believe that questioning the rules on a particular shot beforehand is allowable..... imo
Doug
(paging Bob Jewett)

During the final against Reyes at the King of the Hill event in Orlando, Sigel requested and received such a rules interpretation from referee Charlie Ursitti, who has been around pool since the days of Mosconi. If providing a ruling would have been inappropriate, you can be sure that the request would have been denied by one of the game's most prolific referees and greatest scholars.

I recall that at the last BCA Open, a player (sorry, can't remember who it was) requested a referee's ruling concerning whether he was allowed to change the shaft on his cue in mid-match. The rule was explained, although I don't remember the details.

It is not unusual for a player to request a ruling in pro pool competiton, and, at least in my experience, the request is customarily granted.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I believe that questioning the rules on a particular shot beforehand is allowable..... imo
Doug
(paging Bob Jewett)

It is explicitly mentioned in some sets of rules. At snooker, the players are expected to know the rules and may not ask for clarification. At pool the rules and interpretations change too frequently for such a strict policy to work. The problem for the pool referee is to answer the question without leading the player to the right (or wrong) shot.

There is also a rule that if the referee makes a mistake in stating the rule, the player is stuck. Only the real rule applies. As for what the rule about explaining rules was in Reno, I have no idea.

I hope that some day pool rules are stable enough that players can be expected to know them.

I noticed that during the KOtH Manalo-Bustamante match, in which Manalo made his disputed safety/foul, Bustamante asked if he could deliberately play Manalo's ball. The ref pointed out that he would give up ball in hand if he did so. (This game was on a continuous loop in the Hilton/Grand Sierra on channel 28 during the final weekend. I must have watched the shot 10 times, and I never could be sure from the TV whether the shot was a foul or just nearly a foul.)

 

[X Breaker]

If a player asks the ref about what would happen if he does this or that and then follow the ref's instruction, is that considered coaching and thus a foul?

Thank you.

Richard

 

[Bob Jewett]

If a player asks the ref about what would happen if he does this or that and then follow the ref's instruction, is that considered coaching and thus a foul?...

I assume you mean under IPT rules. Those rules seem to be available at:

http://www.internationalpooltour.com/ipt_content/ipt_rules/default.asp

I do not see any mention of whether the ref should or should not answer questions about the rules.

 

[memikey]

I don't know what the IPT Referees Calling Procedures are but perhaps 'Rarelymisses' might have been confusing BCA/WPA/IPT Rules and Calling Procedures with those used in what is commonly referred to as "English 8 Ball" and played predominantly in UK under various different pool bodies.

My understanding is that in all forms of those "English" rules the Calling Procedures,Guidance to Referees and regular custom and practice has been and still is that the referee is not permitted to respond with a yes or no to any question from a player as regards whether or not any particular intended future shot or action on the players part would constitute a foul.

 

[Rich R.]

I don't know what the IPT Referees Calling Procedures are but perhaps 'Rarelymisses' might have been confusing BCA/WPA/IPT Rules and Calling Procedures with those used in what is commonly referred to as "English 8 Ball" and played predominantly in UK under various different pool bodies.

My understanding is that in all forms of those "English" rules the Calling Procedures,Guidance to Referees and regular custom and practice has been and still is that the referee is not permitted to respond with a yes or no to any question from a player as regards whether or not any particular intended future shot or action on the players part would constitute a foul.

I have just received the following information, from an excellent source, who prefers to remain anonymous.

In the IPT, asking the Ref about a rule, during a match is very close, to 'coaching', which is against the Ref rules.

The IPT is supposed to be made up of professional players that "SHOULD" know the rules. Every table had a set of rules for the players to refer to during their matches.

I can't say that I agree with this practice, but that is the practice in the IPT.

 

[barryc]

Must have been funny

I think this would be funnier than hell to see, wish I was there to see it! Seems to me playing snail slow is a little disrespectful as well (not illegal either). Surprised he wasn't sleeping on a table not just climbing on it.

barryc