Do you STILL want Earl in the HOF???

W

Williebetmore

Member, .25% Club
Silver Member
Just wondering how many people saw Earl in the Skins game - he clearly fouled, but refused to admit it (referee was screened) - REALLY POOR sportsmanship. My wife (who knows next to nothing about pool) said, "isn't that cheating?"

Is sterling play alone a reason for HOF induction, when in many other ways he exemplifies all that is bad in the game? Hack Wilson (hated sportwriters and vice versa) and Pete Rose come to mind as HOF quality baseball players who have been so far excluded for other reasons. It will be interesting to see how high the standards of the voters are, and whether Earl will ever meet those standards.
 
Williebetmore said:
Just wondering how many people saw Earl in the Skins game - he clearly fouled, but refused to admit it (referee was screened) - REALLY POOR sportsmanship. My wife (who knows next to nothing about pool) said, "isn't that cheating?"

Is sterling play alone a reason for HOF induction, when in many other ways he exemplifies all that is bad in the game? Hack Wilson (hated sportwriters and vice versa) and Pete Rose come to mind as HOF quality baseball players who have been so far excluded for other reasons. It will be interesting to see how high the standards of the voters are, and whether Earl will ever meet those standards.
Click to expand...

Earl got away with one..Nothing wrong with trying ,we see it every week in football but they have instant replay,players cant get away with it ..
Why not pool instant replay should be instituted..
 
I havent watched it yet (have it on tape) but was reading about this on another board.

If not calling a foul on yourself during a match that has a ref and the ref doesnt make the call should keep someone out of the HOF they better go back and take some of the names off the list.

While trying to learn straight pool I have seen several matches where there was an OBVIOUS foul and nothing was called. Those players did not stop the match and say they had just fouled, they kept on playing.

If we are gonna roast Earl, we need to roast em all.

Woody
 
watch the Mosconi Cup from 2002.
during a doubles match Nick Varner hit a shot, and inadvertently moved a ball to a worse position. Oliver Ortmann i think realized it, but the referee (not sure if it was Michaela or Nigel?) didnt see it, so Nick got away with it. the announcers even went back and replayed it, and commented about it.

i understand your point Willie.
but like they say, its not a foul, unless you get caught.

DCP
 
I don't know

I watched that one and it's a tough call. There is a referee and the referee was out of position and that's not really Earl's fault. I guess for $16,000 it's pretty tough to call a foul on yourself. I will have to say that I gained a lot of respect for Charlie Williams. He was a gentleman and accepted the situation, got back to the table and won the game. Williams showed that he has a lot of class, the game needs more players who display that level of sportsmanship. If he had thrown a tantrum on national TV (you KNOW that Earl would have if the situation had been reversed) it would have damaged the game's reputation with the public and the sponsors and I think he knew that. I'm glad that Williams won it and it may be a good lesson for the referees to stay where they can see the whole shot. I'm not sure what Earl should have done but he missed a golden opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of the public and his peers for past transgressions.
 
My first reaction was the same as Willies when I saw it. All I can say is that I was very happy to see Charlie win and gained a lot of respect for him in the way he handled the situation. I agree that calling a foul on yourself when it could cost you $16K is tough to do but I think Earl would have shown a ton of class and integrity if he had. It wasn't me but I would like to think that in a similar situation, I would do the right thing and call the foul. These guys don't make a lot of money so I really can't begrudge Earl but it would have been nice to see. He still deserves the HOF nod in my opinion.

Dave
 
Earl did the right thing period. Don't think for a moment that any of those other players would have done the same thing. Would Strickland have complained-sure he would have, just as he has always done in the past, the present and in the future......

Scott Smith didn't see it so there was no foul, It could have be contested by them and I am sure Scott would have reviewed the tape, but it didn't happen and everyone went home with some money in their pockets....

Earl Strickland has won more tournaments than anyone on this planet and has done so in the 80s' 90's and in 2000's. He will be in the hall of pocket billiards fame. If Earl was a better person, they would have inducted him years ago...
 
Last edited:
Williebetmore said:
Just wondering how many people saw Earl in the Skins game - he clearly fouled, but refused to admit it (referee was screened) - REALLY POOR sportsmanship. My wife (who knows next to nothing about pool) said, "isn't that cheating?"

Is sterling play alone a reason for HOF induction, when in many other ways he exemplifies all that is bad in the game? Hack Wilson (hated sportwriters and vice versa) and Pete Rose come to mind as HOF quality baseball players who have been so far excluded for other reasons. It will be interesting to see how high the standards of the voters are, and whether Earl will ever meet those standards.
Click to expand...


Umm, Hack Wilson IS in the baseball hall of fame.
 
Bobby said:
Umm, Hack Wilson IS in the baseball hall of fame.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware he finally made it - he was ostracized for at least 40 years (getting in after you die may not be the most enjoyable way to get in). I lost interest in baseball in the early 80's when the salaries went way up, and the skill level just kept going down.
 
1. Yes he still should be in HOF. There are plenty of questionable people than him in many of the sport hall of fames. His accomplishments should be all that counts.
2. I did not see that match but I assume by all the posts they were playing touching of any ball was a foul rather than cue ball fouls only.
3. Do you think he knew he had fouled? I know I have touched other balls playing and did not know it until my opponent pointed it out. I always took their word for it. You mean Charlie didn't see it either? For that kind of money you have to pay better attention.
4. If it was a foul and Earl knew it he should have called it. After all he plays a lot of golf and I am sure he uses the honesty rule about calling your own penalty strokes.(or does he? lol) Maybe that is why his handicap is low? lol. But then if he's gambling at golf he doesn't want that either, does he?
5. But on the other hand, which makes it tough, is golf has a lot more money to pass around so the penalty may not be as harsh in the pocketbook.
 
JustPlay said:
Earl did the right thing period.
Click to expand...

No he didn't do the right thing. The right thing would have been to be honest and call the foul. What Earl did was play by the rules and for that I really can't fault him. To say he did the right thing, well maybe you and I just have a difference of opinion between what's right and what's wrong. The outcome was just and to me that is what really matters.
 
woody_968 said:
I havent watched it yet (have it on tape) but was reading about this on another board.

If not calling a foul on yourself during a match that has a ref and the ref doesnt make the call should keep someone out of the HOF they better go back and take some of the names off the list.

While trying to learn straight pool I have seen several matches where there was an OBVIOUS foul and nothing was called. Those players did not stop the match and say they had just fouled, they kept on playing.

If we are gonna roast Earl, we need to roast em all.

Woody
Click to expand...

its not that he didn't call it on himself that. charlie williams called it and earl's comment was "he didn't see it". that there is basically an admission. its like saying "yea i did, but the ref didn't see it". its one thing to foul and NO ONE calls it, we've all had that happen. we foul and know it but no one else called it. but when the opposing player calls a legit foul on you, its time to be honest. thats my opinion anyway. but in all fairness thats no reason to keep the man out the hall of fame.

thanks
 
My feeling is HOF induction is a tribute to a player's career achievements playing the sport first and foremost. There is no question to me that Mr. Strickland's achivements qualify him for membership. Everything else should be secondary to this, unless his unprofessional behaviour can be held up to a set of uniform standards that all other players in the HOF have also been judged by.

In the USA there is no long-term men's Pro Tour or players organization to set conduct rules that could be used to settle such arguments. The BCA is a trade organization, not a body of peers in the sport.
 
nfty9er said:
1. Yes he still should be in HOF. There are plenty of questionable people than him in many of the sport hall of fames. His accomplishments should be all that counts.
2. I did not see that match but I assume by all the posts they were playing touching of any ball was a foul rather than cue ball fouls only.
3. Do you think he knew he had fouled? I know I have touched other balls playing and did not know it until my opponent pointed it out. I always took their word for it. You mean Charlie didn't see it either? For that kind of money you have to pay better attention.
4. If it was a foul and Earl knew it he should have called it. After all he plays a lot of golf and I am sure he uses the honesty rule about calling your own penalty strokes.(or does he? lol) Maybe that is why his handicap is low? lol. But then if he's gambling at golf he doesn't want that either, does he?
5. But on the other hand, which makes it tough, is golf has a lot more money to pass around so the penalty may not be as harsh in the pocketbook.
Click to expand...

1. i agree with 1

2. yes, all balls foul

3. he moved the ball about 2 inches with his shaft, he couldn't have missed it. charlie williams called it, but earl said "he didn't see it".

4. i agree with the last 2
 
Could the difference in answers be due to the fact that pool is normally not played with a ref?

Most of the sports that are being compared to always have a ref, so the players are not expected to make calls on themselves.

Golf would be the exeption, and is played under the honor system. But if golfers were to have an official with them during the entire round to call ALL rules violations would golf still be played the way it is today? Im sure the players of the past would still call their own infratctions, but I could see the game changing over the years if "refs" were to be placed in every foursome.

Im not saying its right or wrong, just wanted to get some oppinions on the topic.

Woody
 
woody_968 said:
Could the difference in answers be due to the fact that pool is normally not played with a ref?

Most of the sports that are being compared to always have a ref, so the players are not expected to make calls on themselves.

Golf would be the exeption, and is played under the honor system. But if golfers were to have an official with them during the entire round to call ALL rules violations would golf still be played the way it is today? Im sure the players of the past would still call their own infratctions, but I could see the game changing over the years if "refs" were to be placed in every foursome.

Im not saying its right or wrong, just wanted to get some oppinions on the topic.

Woody
Click to expand...

Well I agree with that reasoning but pool should be an exception too because most tournaments do not have refs for all matches. That is probably the most difficult part of tournaments when one player calls a foul and the other denies it or does not acknowledge. In this case if Charlie called a foul and there was an argument was there an option to check the tape? Maybe Jam knows that because according to her they had a big meeting about the rules. I know in tournaments(Reno tournament) that Pat Fleming tapes ,if a tape is available and an argument they have many times looked at it and made a decision on the basis of what the tape showed. I do not think there are any rules in our sport that prevent that or need to be voted on like instant replay in football.
I beiieve that is what should have happened.
Now as far as you golf analogy I must say that would be hard cause you would need a ref for every player in the 4 some as they are so spread out. That would be funny one ref running from side to side and hazard to hazard.
The important thing is to get it right for that kind of money.
 
I won't say Earl cheated as they had a Ref and it is his responsibility to call fouls. However if Charlie saw the foul and asked about it, Earl should have acknowledged the foul. On the other hand if he didn't realize he moved the ball and the ref did not call it, then he don't give up the table.
A few years ago I was playing a very good player in Ohio. Down 6-0, I come back to 6-6 and I get locked to the side of a ball. Even though I'm shooting away from the ball, my opponent calls the tour director to watch the shot. I play a carom and make the 9 to win the match. Ref says the ball I'm frozen to rocked and gives my opponent ball in hand with 4 balls on the table. No one else saw the ball move and even my opponent confirmed I did not foul. I asked him to give me the game and he refused. I can't say I've thought any less of him because of the call. He just played by the rules.
I don't know if I would have given up the game to be honest with you. It's a tough call. Earl will still get in eventually, and I think he deserves it. Play fair and have fun. Sam
 
nfty9er said:
Well I agree with that reasoning but pool should be an exception too because most tournaments do not have refs for all matches. That is probably the most difficult part of tournaments when one player calls a foul and the other denies it or does not acknowledge.
Click to expand...

This was exactly why I wanted to put the question out there, MOST of our tournaments dont have refs at every table so we expect fouls to be called by the player commiting the foul. But when an official is present should our expectations change? If not, then why have the ref?
 
I Expect It From Earl

Poor sportsmanship is one thing, cheating is another. The man is a great player. Charlie won anyway, as he should have. I just wish Earl would try and clean up his act some. You want to know what is wrong with pool, cheaters, sandbagers, hustlers, pros who will endorse any piece of shit someone comes up with just to make a buck. Get the money, no matter what! I gotta make my nut! I am getting really tired of it all. I am glad I have a pool playing wife and a table at home. I can't even buy a $6,500 cue with 2 straight shafts. What is the game coming to guys? I use to love it. Maybe I am having a bad day.
Purdman
 
Come on ! Of course Earl should be in the hall of fame ! There are already players there who couldn't always keep themselves behaving well. For instance, I've heard a story of Willie Mosconi. He had shouted at some 9-year old boy in an exhibition match because Mosconi missed at 200-something. Mosconi said the boy moved during his miss. The little boy started crying over his idol's nasty words and the crowd started booing to Mosconi. Now, is that a behavious of a Hall of Famer ? I don't care, Mosconi was one heck of a player, just like Strickland is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top