ESPN Generationpool.com Archer vs. Wiseman
- Thread starter trueblu8
- Start date
Except... many people are overlooking that on a shot like that you have to be watchin very closely in order to truly tell if it's a double hit. I say truly tell, because in some cases it's quite easy to tell if it's a double hit, but in other cases it's very difficult to tell unless you're right up on it and paying close attention to it. If the ref didn't look like he was in the right position and/or paying close attention, then the only way to rectify that situation is for a player (non-shooter) to make sure. Because, after the shot happens, if the ref is not sure then the benefit of the doubt will go to the shooter.PoolSharkAllen said:
For example, Earl Strickland had a famous incident where he clearly fouled (if memory serves me it was against Charlie Williams, the dragon), but the ref was not in position. Thus, the ruling from the ref was no foul, because he wasn't in position to see it.
Obviously the ref should've been in position. If there's potentially any doubt, then the non-shooter should ensure that the ref is aware and in position.
And on the other hand, if the ref was in position and fully aware, then Johnny should have stayed back and stayed out of it. For, it's too easy to be accused of sharking as in this case.
Well, truth be told. Johnny Archer shot pretty badly in that match.DelaWho??? said:
Johnny Archer generally shoots over 90% in matches that he plays. In that match he shot noticeably under 90%.
There were at least 2 or 3 times that he should've been out. He had made all the major shots, and just had to make a couple of simple shots to win the game, and instead he missed badly.
I, like you and others, do believe that Johnny Archer stressed it in the interview as a small dig after the Wiseman wisecracks. Could be wrong, but it was fact that they didn't have a stellar performance in that match.
JustPlay..."Desperate" player? 
who hasn't been winning in the last several years? 
I guess you must not follow pro tournaments much. Johnny has won SEVERAL big tournaments just in the past few years! I do agree that his behavior was questionable, at best...but your comment is WAY off base!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
who hasn't been winning in the last several years? I guess you must not follow pro tournaments much. Johnny has won SEVERAL big tournaments just in the past few years! I do agree that his behavior was questionable, at best...but your comment is WAY off base!Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
JustPlay said:
Archer vs. Wiseman
Steve Tipton (sp) has been a referee for a long time and I'm sure he knows a double hit when he see's one. For Johnny Archer to appoach the table in the fashion he did is clearing sharking (intentional or not) and a direct insult to Mr. Tipton. Johnny stating he didn't know the rule for shooting directly into balls is a complete joke. He very poor pool playing (at this level) is probably why he did what he did. It was his last chance to keep from losing (which he almost pulled off winning the match).
I have never seen anything like this in a professional tournament with a referee watching the match. I agree with a previous Azer that Steve Tipton should of gave Mr. Wiseman ball in hand with a stong warning to Johnny for his actions.
Steve Tipton (sp) has been a referee for a long time and I'm sure he knows a double hit when he see's one. For Johnny Archer to appoach the table in the fashion he did is clearing sharking (intentional or not) and a direct insult to Mr. Tipton. Johnny stating he didn't know the rule for shooting directly into balls is a complete joke. He very poor pool playing (at this level) is probably why he did what he did. It was his last chance to keep from losing (which he almost pulled off winning the match).
I have never seen anything like this in a professional tournament with a referee watching the match. I agree with a previous Azer that Steve Tipton should of gave Mr. Wiseman ball in hand with a stong warning to Johnny for his actions.
Lol. Good one Maniac. I hope I can look as good as him when I get to be his age. He seems pretty fit for an older guy. I've been doing nothing but packing on the pounds since I got married.Maniac said:Hey, trueblu8,
I got 55-year-old eyes so I don't see so well anymore, especially small objects. It appears to me that in your avatar you VERY closely resemble....................Ronnie Wiseman :scratchhead:! Tell me it ain't so!
Maniac
This is very true. Good point.FLICKit said:
You are right as well.TWOFORPOOL said:
Last edited:
JA and Ronnie both played bad,it was"nt their fault.It"s them dam OLHAUSEN tables.I got a 9 ft. grand champion down stairs that spit
out balls like a cheap w....e.Thought it was just me.Soon as I can put
mind off on somebody,going to get a real gem.....a DIAMOND......
out balls like a cheap w....e.Thought it was just me.Soon as I can put
mind off on somebody,going to get a real gem.....a DIAMOND......
FLICKit said:
I think if he said anything about Ronnie it should have been gracious. Like "I played really bad today, Ronnie played better" or "It was a tough match for me, today Ronnie came out on top"
I don't think he needed to take a shot at Ronnie like he did. To me it just sounded like sour grapes and led me to think Johnnie's actions at the table weren't so innocent either.
B
First of all, there is one comment which needs major clarification. "Sharking" is a very overloaded term. There is a huge difference between what's deemed as intentional sharking and side effect sharking.TWOFORPOOL said:
1. Intentional sharking is making an intentional and conscious maneuver in a conscious attempt to throw off your opponent. It is a deliberate act of trying to consciously do something that will impact your opponent's behavior.
This is not to be confused with intentional actions that somehow end up leading to sharking.
2. As opposed to term 2, which I'll just call "inadvertant sharking". Inadvertant sharking is that whole realm of actions that makes "sharking", an overloaded term. Inadvertant sharking could be roughly defined as any actions that an opponent or anyone else for that matter does which the shooter deems distracting, in any way. Often times, many actions that would be normal to a pool shooting environment would be loosely deemed as "sharking". For example, in a normal pool hall, if a waitress or customer passes by the table this could be deemed as sharking. Or, if the opponent leans over to someone next to them and whispers or does almost any other action, then this could also be construed as sharking from some. Or if someone happens to hoot and holler in the pool hall/bar, especially when it is precisely at the moment that the player is about to shoot. Yet the hollering might be related to some sporting event on TV...
The first definition of sharking is dishonest and dishonorable.
The second definiton of sharking is often less about the opponent, and more about the shooter making excuses. Just let it go, and re-focus on what you have to do to make the shot.
Oddly enough, I kind of agree with you here. Personally, I don't think Johnny Archer's wording was exactly precise. I grant him a bit of leeway here, because given the heat of the moment and the timing by which the events occur, there often isn't enough time to thoroughly and accurately plan your words.TWOFORPOOL said:
When you say "it was his last chance to keep from losing", it supposes that Johnny Archer did the first definition of sharking, as described above.TWOFORPOOL said:
Overall, I believe it would be difficult for anyone to "know for sure" that Johnny Archer was intentionally sharking. I understand, it's very easy for some or even many to make assumptions or presume Archer's guilt.
I understand this doesn't have to be taken to the level of proving guilt in a court of law. But, let's not make unneccessary controversary where it may not be warranted.
I have a lot of respect for Johnny and his game, but that kind of move is questionable at best for a man of his experience and ability. Definitely glad Wiseman went on to win the match.
DelaWho??? said:
I can understand how it might sound that way, but we can also look at it differently. From his tone, I took it as him being honest about it and implying that he knows Mr. Wiseman's regular level of play is much better. That would be understandable too, since it was supposedly his first televised match.
What I really don't understand is why there is even any question about "what the rule is". The WPA rule about the balls being within a chalk's width is a guideline to help people. He can shoot straight towards the 5 ball if he wants, as long as he stops his cue fast enough to avoid a double hit, which I agree is tough from that distance, but possible. Do some of these pro events actually change this rule to say that the player literally MUST shoot away? Or maybe this was not a WPA sanctioned event?
I think his explanation (that he wanted clarity on the rule) may have not been an accurate statement... maybe the real reason was that he was worried that the ref would make a bad call; he probably wanted to make sure he was watching close enough and from the correct position to judge a double hit, as FLICKit mentioned.
Perhaps he was standing there thinking how could he tactfully let the ref know that he's not in a good position to see the double hit, and maybe the question about the rule was the best he could come up with, and still came up with it too late. :embarrassed2:
In any case, if Johnny had to approach the table to talk to the ref, he should have only done it before Ronnie was down on the shot. Approaching while he was down on the shot like that should have probably been an unsportsmanlike conduct violation and ball in hand to Ronnie, IMHO. (See, bad call by ref for not calling that.) I don't think it was intentional sharking by Johnny, but his direct actions broke his opponent's concentration while he was down on the shot.
Or maybe this was not a WPA sanctioned event?I think his explanation (that he wanted clarity on the rule) may have not been an accurate statement... maybe the real reason was that he was worried that the ref would make a bad call; he probably wanted to make sure he was watching close enough and from the correct position to judge a double hit, as FLICKit mentioned.
Perhaps he was standing there thinking how could he tactfully let the ref know that he's not in a good position to see the double hit, and maybe the question about the rule was the best he could come up with, and still came up with it too late. :embarrassed2:
In any case, if Johnny had to approach the table to talk to the ref, he should have only done it before Ronnie was down on the shot. Approaching while he was down on the shot like that should have probably been an unsportsmanlike conduct violation and ball in hand to Ronnie, IMHO. (See, bad call by ref for not calling that.
) I don't think it was intentional sharking by Johnny, but his direct actions broke his opponent's concentration while he was down on the shot.
That's a good point here Cuebacca. How could Johnny Archer tactfully have said "Hey Steve, could you make sure and watch for a double hit here?". Lol.
![chewbacca-pitching[1].jpg](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/51/51182-126b2b3630a90e77ffc3586502e2c268.jpg?hash=EmsrNjCpDn "chewbacca-pitching[1].jpg")
I'm sorry, I just had to stick that pic in there one more time, lol. Btw, who IS Travis Trotter anyways? Could it possibly be Janet Shimmel, or Allison Fisher?
I'm sorry, I just had to stick that pic in there one more time, lol. Btw, who IS Travis Trotter anyways? Could it possibly be Janet Shimmel, or Allison Fisher?
Last edited:
