De Luna at it again

[GideonF]

View attachment 923495

I would curious to see what they actually agreed (as opposed to what Jeff reported it as), because saying WPA rules (which he does) is contradictory to what he’s saying re calling a shot like this.

For example, the discussion could have been “let’s play WPA rules, not Filipino rules [flukes, no call shot of anything].” Maybe even “call banks, kicks, caroms and combos”.

The issue that most of us have is that what Laz shot isn’t commonly thought of as kick.
I mean it’s possible that they did say “you have to call rail first shots”, but it would be unusually specific and unusual in terms of how people play.

 

[markjames]

where in this seven hour video is the controversy?

 

[straightline]

First post. Opens to the shot in question.

 

[markjames]

thanks i missed the facebook link-

deluna behaving like a fool, he is up 10-5 in a race to 15

 

[straightline]

Watch the end of the second set. Both commentators begging off on the shark. Yeah you could call it hazing, frankly not enthused about the 'immersion' experience.

 

[Sheldon]

This would have been a great thing to mention on the stream. The commentator in the video appears to have no clue this was the case and it would have avoided all of this.

But then dozens of people wouldn't be able to climb aboard their high horses and pass judgement. And generate lots of online attention.

 

[nine_ball6970]

They set the rules and they played by the rules. They weren't playing for fun, nor a ten-dollar set so Jeff had every right to make that call. This game had nothing to do with CSI or WNT Rules, this is a Action match and the players set the rules.

And remember the spot that Laz was getting, the game was fair and if one incident is all everybody talks about their missing the best part of the Action.

Before the rail first in question, Laz had a small masse where he made the ball in the closest pocket to the ball. He gave up the table. That seemed odd to me as well. Was he trying to play safe and it went in the only logical pocket by accident?

 

[King T]

Before the rail first in question, Laz had a small masse where he made the ball in the closest pocket to the ball. He gave up the table. That seemed odd to me as well. Was he trying to play safe and it went in the only logical pocket by accident?

I dont know, but I have played and backed a lot of call shot Pool and either all shots or call the none obvious shots..., but if its call all shots then its all shots.

 

[DieselPete]

I dont know, but I have played and backed a lot of call shot Pool and either all shots or call the none obvious shots..., but if its call all shots then its all shots.

But even then, isn't it generally ball and pocket?

I have never seen anyone have to call rubbing the adjacent rail on a rail-first shot into a ball hanging in the pocket.

 

[easy-e]

But even then, isn't it generally ball and pocket?

I have never seen anyone have to call rubbing the adjacent rail on a rail-first shot into a ball hanging in the pocket.

Right?! To me it's the equivalent of the OB rubbing the rail on the way in and saying he didn't call the "bank".

 

[King T]

But even then, isn't it generally ball and pocket?

I have never seen anyone have to call rubbing the adjacent rail on a rail-first shot into a ball hanging in the pocket.

If it was about a rail-first shot then I would NEVER have given up that call. I was told it was about not calling the pocket not the rail first.

 

[GideonF]

I dont know, but I have played and backed a lot of call shot Pool and either all shots or call the none obvious shots..., but if its call all shots then its all shots.

I watched a fair bit of the match and they didn’t appear to be calling all shots. Just non-obvious ones. Hence the debate.

 

[jax_joe]

View attachment 923495

"rail first "carom""?