Hunter v Frost, your stance?

[The_JV]

Who's to say he touched it.

I have and will continue to do so. Did the 6 ball move...?..., that I can't say. Does that matter...?..., nope.

Hunter was behind him.

No, but don't let the facts deter you from continually spouting off about what you know nothing of.

I'm not giving up the table ever when some dude in the audience called the foul.

...and you shouldn't, and I want to say if Scott really stood his ground on this one he wouldn't have been assessed a foul. The discussion wasn't all that long, and in the end Scott gave up the BIH, not the ref enforcing the foul.

 

[something_pool]

If you knew anything you'd know that ref was told later she made a bad call. That Emily has already admitted "mistakes were made and changes will be implemented ". But keep on acting like you are her big brother....

Whats your source on this?

 

[Maniac]

So, even if Scott "had" beat the dead money guy... He only would have barely gotten there, as it is. Which basically made him dead money, too.

Basically, any American player not named Shane Van Boening is dead money.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

Totally agree.... The way it was handled was poorly done imo. Doesn't change the fact that Scott fouled, and the appropriate outcome of Hunter's BIH occurred...

You’re saying Scott fouled as if any of us here knows for sure whether or not he did.

What we do know is that there was a difference of opinions between the two players and in that case and absent a ref or a “trusted witness” the rule says they must assume no foul occurred.

It appears that the ref made a bad ruling.

 

[westcoast]

Basically, any American player not named Shane Van Boening is dead money.

Sky is still standing in the US Open. If he wins, Shaw is in his way next though- tough task

 

[The_JV]

You’re saying Scott fouled as if any of us here knows for sure whether or not he did.

What we do know is that there was as a difference of opinions between the two players and in that case and absent a ref or a “trusted witness” the rule says they must assume no foul occurred.

It appears that the ref made a bad ruling.

I was standing there and saw it. Feel free to discount my memory of the situation. Only those who weren't there have claimed that he didn't.

The shirt foul was not slight, and very plain to see.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Scott took it well. Being a player commentator probably helped. I hope he gets Matchroom to see how ridiculous those call is. It's a real shame because American pool figured this out decades ago.

As I said in an earlier post, if he calls one of the refs over to view the shot, Scott most likely is careful enough not to foul and runs out and wins the match.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

I was standing there and saw it. Feel free to discount my memory of the situation. Only those who weren't there have claimed that he didn't.

The shirt foul was not slight, and very plain to see.

I’m not discounting your version. In fact, I didn’t read this whole thread, so if you said previously that you were there and saw the shirt foul, I will take your word for it.

 

[SBC]

You’re saying Scott fouled as if any of us here knows for sure whether or not he did.

What we do know is that there was a difference of opinions between the two players and in that case and absent a ref or a “trusted witness” the rule says they must assume no foul occurred.

It appears that the ref made a bad ruling.

Chicken....they gonna barbecue you for that kinda talk around here.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

Chicken....they gonna barbecue you for that kinda talk around here.

If The JV says he was there live and personally witnessed Scott's shirt touch the ball then that's good with me.

However, and this is the key, absent a ref or a video replay that can def show the foul or a "trusted witness" saying a foul occurred then the call should have been 'no foul' according to the rules.

The JV can be our trusted witness here on az but unless the ref knew him as such then her job should have been to rule a no foul.

I want to end this as I often do with 'IMO' but really, it's not my opinion - it's their rule.

 

[The_JV]

I’m not discounting your version. In fact, I didn’t read this whole thread, so if you said previously that you were there and saw the shirt foul, I will take your word for it.

No worries, and thank you

 

[The_JV]

If The JV says he was there live and personally witnessed Scott's shirt touch the ball then that's good with me.

However, and this is the key, absent a ref or a video replay that can def show the foul or a "trusted witness" saying a foul occurred then the call should have been 'no foul' according to the rules.

The JV can be our trusted witness here on az but unless the ref knew him as such then her job should have been to rule a no foul.

I want to end this as I often do with 'IMO' but really, it's not my opinion - it's their rule.

It happened and in the end it played out as it should have.

How they got there was bs imo. What I, and all other bystanders saw, should not have had any play in the assessing of a foul to Scott. There's also no way Scott could have called the foul on himself.

There's a hole in the rules that Emily has openly explained. However it could have been avoided if the players had brought a ref in earlier. Pretending that "they couldn't have known prior" is naive. All players with an ounce of time on a table know when there's a risk of a contact foul. In fact I have also witnessed many players calling refs to watch their own shots, without waiting for their opponent to do so.

 

[jasonlaus]

From my interactions with Hunter over the last ~ 15 years he has always seemed like a straight up good person. Whether people think he's arrogant because he has good posture and speaks well is on them.

I honestly would be surprised if he was lying but I hang out with all of you, so how good is my judgement

As far as Scott, he handled the situation way better than most of us would have and I have to give him props for that. You could say he handled it well because he knows he's guilty but in my experience the more guilty somebody is, the louder they are in denying it. I would buy him a beer and let him know I appreciate his professionalism, I would also buy him a beer if he punched Hunter and yelled THIS IS FOR EARL!!! - entertainment is entertainment after all.

Crap situation all around and they need to look at the all balls foul rule especially when the ball doesn't move due to a shirt or hair, pool cues touching balls should be enforced.

 

[SBC]

If The JV says he was there live and personally witnessed Scott's shirt touch the ball then that's good with me.

However, and this is the key, absent a ref or a video replay that can def show the foul or a "trusted witness" saying a foul occurred then the call should have been 'no foul' according to the rules.

The JV can be our trusted witness here on az but unless the ref knew him as such then her job should have been to rule a no foul.

I want to end this as I often do with 'IMO' but really, it's not my opinion - it's their rule.

You are correct. Dont matter what anyone saw....no ref it goes to the shooter.

 

[tobermory2]

Scott did the same thing to me at Derby. He's a jerk and poor sport in many ways. However, I agree Scott handled this case pretty well. I don't know Hunter but I couldn't live with myself if I need some POS rule to win my match without a ref to call it.

What was Hunter to do, Jim? Observe the foul and say nothing? I can't say for sure what I would have done, but I think I would have given him the no-call but then called over the ref to watch Scott shoot the shot without fouling, and I'd have been hoping like hell that he did it again and got called on it by the ref.

 

[tobermory2]

The rules do say that the ref should rely on “trusted witnesses.”

Well, trusted witnesses can provide testimony, as it were, and that testimony is evidence of what happened. Evidence not defined in the rules so it includes whatever information about the situation is available that help the ref decide how make a determination about what happened and whether any rules were violated.

 

[tobermory2]

I actually have a big problem with this especially what the referee girl has said.

She went "The player on the chair acts as a referee if the referee isn't there, so you've seen it, then its a foul" ?????????? REALLY????????

Let me tell you something, if I play you next time and the referee isn't next to me i'll call a foul on my opponent every second shot cause I ACT AS A REFEREE AND ITS FOR MY BEST INTEREST TO GET BALL IN HAND.

Listen I am sorry but this is just so wrong. Obviosly the opponent want to call a foul cause he gains from it, how on earth would we know that he actually touched the 6ball???? its his word against mine, i'm on the last 3 balls obviously he wants to get to the table he'd do anything. The guy on the outside could be hunter's friend too who knows?

I really am shocked here, hunter should never taken a foul because he was responsible to call the referee to see and observe that would have been my ruling, the girl referee was mistaken big time.

now that's pure old school...

 

[Coos Cues]

Always remember to show up at your matches young and fit.

If you can't do that I would advise a wardrobe like this.

 

[SBC]

Go to Scott Frost's FB page...
Emily said they got it wrong and this nonsense opponent being the ref will be removed. Scott handled himself with class. He's mellowed with age like most men do in time. His concern is seeing pool become bigger.

 

[SBC]

Totally agree.... The way it was handled was poorly done imo. Doesn't change the fact that Scott fouled, and the appropriate outcome of Hunter's BIH occurred...

Matchroom changing the rule for it's obvious flaws. So that is that.