Have not seen the whole video, which part was it? In any case, there is no excuse, as a C player even i know that is poor sportsmanship. A Pro have no excuse.
Does this action constitute unsportsmanship?
- Thread starter donuteric
- Start date
Have not seen the whole video, which part was it? In any case, there is no excuse, as a C player even i know that is poor sportsmanship. A Pro have no excuse.
Not near a computer so i cant find exactly where it is but if i recall right its the very first rack, could be wrong.
Rack 2
It happens in rack 2, shooting the 6 ball. If I was running the tourney and seen that happen, it would be loss of game. Had it been an accident, just a foul,,,,, but that was a blatant intentional foul.
It happens in rack 2, shooting the 6 ball. If I was running the tourney and seen that happen, it would be loss of game. Had it been an accident, just a foul,,,,, but that was a blatant intentional foul.
You let the ball continue to move until it stops. Most people know this. The guy pulled a move or doesn't understand.
Or has done?
Iirc-watching an Earl match on Youtube, he missed a kick, I think, and then tried to push the cb to the opponent with his cue. Instead, the cb went toward some balls, Earl tired to corral it, but instead swiped it toward some other balls, then in trying to avoid that collision, whacked several more balls.
It was a disaster. It resulted in BIH. I don't think it was deliberate. But it was funny. Sort of a run away chain reaction.
Iirc-watching an Earl match on Youtube, he missed a kick, I think, and then tried to push the cb to the opponent with his cue. Instead, the cb went toward some balls, Earl tired to corral it, but instead swiped it toward some other balls, then in trying to avoid that collision, whacked several more balls.
It was a disaster. It resulted in BIH. I don't think it was deliberate. But it was funny. Sort of a run away chain reaction.
I might be inclined to give a Unsportsmanship Warning to the player, such as it is, that would give you BIH (now). Any subsequent unsportmanly conduct would be Loss of Game, and another subsequent one would be Loss of Match.
A warning would only be appropriate if it is unlikely the layout of the table would be dramatically changed had the cueball been allowed to finish its course.
In this instance, since the original poster suggested the layout would have been significantly altered in his favor, an actual penalty should have been levied.
Personally, I don't think warnings should ever be issued unless the offense is not always regarded as an offense in other organizations (ie., using a phenolic tip).
I might be wrong but I think that is considered an intentional foul and should be loss of game.
imo, I think that's the issue. Was it intentional? If that cannot be proven, then the TD can only issue a verbal warning the first time and give BIH. Now, when it happens again... that's loss of game I believe (if that is what comes next after a verbal warning).
There are some unknowns....
1) Was this the 1st time during the match that the cue ball was touched while it was rollin?
2) Is this a weekly tournament, basicaly for fun, or a regional size tourney?
3) It's very difficult to know his intentions........
If I was the director, I would just issue him a warning and award you BIH.
These scenarios come up a lot and I think everyone here is trying to figure out a way to come up with a complete answer for all scenarios and it's simply not possible.
There are three different rulings that can be enforced here and it's important to understand which ruling favors whom:
1. BIH - This is a no-penalty ruling that heavily favors the shooter. If the table was definitely going to be rearranged in such a way that would have given the incoming player a routine layout, this would not be justice. On the otherhand, this is a neutral ruling if it can be assessed that neither player is likely to run out.
2. Loss of Game - Given that the incoming player would have likely run out the remaining balls had they been contacted, this is a fair ruling for the incoming player but doesn't penalize the act. There is no reason for the offending player to not try this again against another opponent in another event.
3. Loss of Match - This should be reserved for instances where the shooter was clearly trying to cheat (in any way). If the player deliberately stopped the cueball knowing it would break open balls, you have to penalize him to the max. Stopping the cueball CANNOT be viewed as a tactic.
In my humble opinion, given the original post is accurate, the referee should be confined to rule #2 or #3. If he was cheating, he should lose the whole match.
There are three different rulings that can be enforced here and it's important to understand which ruling favors whom:
1. BIH - This is a no-penalty ruling that heavily favors the shooter. If the table was definitely going to be rearranged in such a way that would have given the incoming player a routine layout, this would not be justice. On the otherhand, this is a neutral ruling if it can be assessed that neither player is likely to run out.
2. Loss of Game - Given that the incoming player would have likely run out the remaining balls had they been contacted, this is a fair ruling for the incoming player but doesn't penalize the act. There is no reason for the offending player to not try this again against another opponent in another event.
3. Loss of Match - This should be reserved for instances where the shooter was clearly trying to cheat (in any way). If the player deliberately stopped the cueball knowing it would break open balls, you have to penalize him to the max. Stopping the cueball CANNOT be viewed as a tactic.
In my humble opinion, given the original post is accurate, the referee should be confined to rule #2 or #3. If he was cheating, he should lose the whole match.
The first foul was not hitting a ball. Touching the cue ball before it stopped rolling, especially if it was going to contact other balls, is a second intentional foul.
I've had players, for the cash, grab the cue ball after they've missed on a kick and stop it from opening up the other balls. It tells me everything I need to know about whom I'm playing.
If I would do something like that, it would absolutely be an intentional move on my part. I would expect repercussions and/or concussions to be in order. It should never happen.
Best,
Mike
I've had players, for the cash, grab the cue ball after they've missed on a kick and stop it from opening up the other balls. It tells me everything I need to know about whom I'm playing.
If I would do something like that, it would absolutely be an intentional move on my part. I would expect repercussions and/or concussions to be in order. It should never happen.
Best,
Mike
I don't understand the pink words. In the case where a player intentionally keept the balls from beig disturbed, it is certainly a tactic and IMO should be punished to the fullest.
Is is correct that your intention was to say: Stopping the cueball CANNOT be viewed as a viable tactic (for players)?
Perhaps he means it cannot be allowed to be a tactic?
Agreed- be it the result of ignorance, or malice, or anything in between.
Yes. Stopping the cueball cannot be viewed as an available option / viable tactic. As the title suggests, this is unsportsmanlike conduct and the moment you enter that realm, the referee has the power to issue any penalty. At the very least, an additional game-loss could have been issued. If I were the original poster, I would have also been satisfied with this ruling.
The physical act of grabbing the cue ball before it stopped rolling is only one portion of the total move on your opponent's part. It's either gonna fire you up and bring out the Chuck Norris in your game or it's gonna split your concentration because you're pissed.
Usually the latter happens and it probably would've been a good time to take a short break and regain your composure. It would've also magnified what your opponent did, in their own mind and anybody else sitting there watching the match. They would've been forced to think about it until the match resumed. A subtle move on your part without confronting them and getting distracted.
Best,
Mike
Usually the latter happens and it probably would've been a good time to take a short break and regain your composure. It would've also magnified what your opponent did, in their own mind and anybody else sitting there watching the match. They would've been forced to think about it until the match resumed. A subtle move on your part without confronting them and getting distracted.
Best,
Mike
1) Yes. He appeared to be someone who knows the game, and I had to be on top of my game to win. He missed a few kicks before the situation discussed here, and all of it he just went back to sit down.
2) No. It's an annual tournament with $5000 guaranteed for first place in the championship round.
3) Nobody knows what his intentions were. Of course, like said, my side of the story was that he made a move on me.
No warning was issued. I was only given with BIH and a tough layout to run.
Unsportsmanlike in my book. Should be a loss of game at least.
im not sure why this is being discussed so much. if it was intentional or not, unsportsman like or not, the rule should be (i dont know what it technically is) loss of game. if there is any question whatsoever that the cb could have hit some other balls it is absolutely loss of game. i thiknk it should be loss of game if a outgoing player touches a still moving cb anytime, that way there is no ambiguity. loss of match it WAY WAY overboard here. if he did this 2 or 3 times i could see how you could at least bring up loss of match, but not the first time. loss of one game is very strong assuming equal skill levels.
seriously, why dont we just have a rule that the outgoing player can never touch any ball. its easy and there is none of this.
seriously, why dont we just have a rule that the outgoing player can never touch any ball. its easy and there is none of this.