If his intention was to call a foul then he would have called a foul. Instead he cordially told Scott that his shirt was touching and asked him to watch it.
Hunter v Frost, your stance?
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
Facebook blew up and the main outlets were two influencers that feed the drama mill continuously.
Exactly, and James Leone has since recanted this statement. Don't know about the other person but Hunter has never even met that person.
Hunter's integrity is 100% intact870 million dollar company!
Raping pool
50k first prize us open!
256 x 1k = 256k
Total prize fund 300k
In my opinion, with vendors and spectator MONEY! Added money was ZERO........
MATCHROOM = Barry Behrman corporate edition!
His reputation was less than stellar. Oddly enough, integrity and cost cutting taints the product. Hunter chasing dollars and the win at the cost of his integrity is learned behavior! Matchroom taught him well.....
KD
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
So glad the JV and JB are so knowledgeable that they actually know what people’s intentions are. They know that while Hunter informed Scott he fouled he actually had no intention of calling said foul. He was just letting him know lol. Gotta love people who state opinions as fact.
Last edited:
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Fact is, a shirt should not touch any balls. It's a foul. He shouldn't be 'warning' or letting anyone off. It's a competition... A foul, is a foul. Letting someone off a foul, isn't sportsmanship, it's stupid. He shouldn't have warned him. Should have straight up called him and left no room for ambiguity.
These people saying he's barred from a place, or can't be a house pro, because he called someone out for literally fouling, need their head examined.
It's the wishy washy idea that a shirt can touch any ball in matchplay that is the truly ridiculous thing about any of this.
These people saying he's barred from a place, or can't be a house pro, because he called someone out for literally fouling, need their head examined.
It's the wishy washy idea that a shirt can touch any ball in matchplay that is the truly ridiculous thing about any of this.
I love American pool fans. They are straight up honest about what is happening.
Hunter played at World Events. Corruption and cheating is more common in sanctioned sports that compete for national amateur titles.
Was what Hunter did cheating or corrupt? I don't know. However the will to win by any means in national title competitions is extremely high to the point cheating can happen a lot more.
I cite doping, bribery and jury tampering as historical evidence. Thankfully pool players don't require medical check ups.
If the players were not from the US, they might actually try to work together.
Hunter played at World Events. Corruption and cheating is more common in sanctioned sports that compete for national amateur titles.
Was what Hunter did cheating or corrupt? I don't know. However the will to win by any means in national title competitions is extremely high to the point cheating can happen a lot more.
I cite doping, bribery and jury tampering as historical evidence. Thankfully pool players don't require medical check ups.
If the players were not from the US, they might actually try to work together.
Last edited:
I think that’s the thing. We can operate on the facts we do have (the video). Hunter never called foul. I think it can end with that. Maybe he would’ve. Maybe he wouldn’t have. If the fans didn’t get involved. If Scott didn’t engage the fans. If Scott focused his energy on talking to Hunter, we might have found out. But it didn’t play out that way. So in either case, we have no standing judging Hunter on what did happen.
The official WPA policy during a match to dispute a call, a player is to wait for the ref and in their chair. Only an appeal for the TD is allowed.
Scott should've called for the TD.
WPA law is censorship during competition.
The fact his Hunter told him he fouled. You can’t tell someone they are fouling in the middle of their shot and not be calling a foul. Either you are acting as a ref or you are not, you can’t have it both ways.
If Scott would have just kept shooting as JV and others say then after he ran out Hunter probably would have been crying saying I called foul but he just kept shooting.
By saying you’re shirt is touching the ball you are saying foul. No? You want us to believe he was just giving out a friendly warning to his opponent in the middle of a hill hill match? Yeah right
Last edited:
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Again, not sure why there would be, or where the ambiguity would come from, if it was simply accepted that touching all balls is absolutely, always a foul...
Apparently you have not read much of this thread before giving your opinion, as it has been clearly stated that Hunter did nothing more than give Scott a heads up that he was touching the ball, and that he "needed to watch out", or similar. He never called the ref, and he DID NOT "call a foul" on Scott. Scott lipping off about it and telling Hunter to call a ref, and then arguing about it with the fans, is what drew the ref's attention, who then asked both players for their take, and they gave their take.
If it was Hunter's "intention" to call a foul, then all this would have went down way different. And if Scott would have just shut his mouth, stood up, and been more careful after the obviously "free foul", he would have run out, and been free to get beat next round.
There is no such thing as giving a “heads up” to your opponent while in the middle of their shot by saying they are fouling. By doing so you are in fact calling a foul or sharking your opponent. I see why they call you Short Bus.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
The whole thing is nonsense when it can just be acknowledged that touching all balls is a foul... It's a competitive game, a 'heads-up' isn't sportsmanship, it's stupid. Go to the player's meeting, check the rules, follow those rules... This whole situation could be 24 pages simpler, if the concept of touching an object ball and carrying on wasn't an accepted thing to begin with. It's quite frankly ridiculous to consider it acceptable...
A 'heads-up' is nonsense and his own stupidity... the fact a referee had to be called over, and dealt with it in that way.... also stupidity. But stupidity that arose from absolute nonsense to begin with... See a foul. Call it.
Exactly! Do I think Scott fouled yes I do. I also think Hunter should own up to calling him on it. If he didn't want a foul to be called he should have sat in his chair and stayed quiet. Instead while the guy is in the middle of running out the case game he gives him a "heads up" that he fouled but he is not calling it he is just letting him know lol.
I would have a ton more respect for Hunter if he would have just owned that he is ok winning like that seeing obviously he is!
Listen to the audio.
Hunter: Your shirt is touching the ball
Scott: No it’s not
Hunter: Just watch it
Scott: Have a ref watch it
That’s where it all went off the rails between Scott, the fans, and the ref. So again, you’re talking opinions on people’s intentions. You want to know what was going to happen? Get a Time Machine and tell that fan to shut up. Because Hunter saying “Just watch it” sure didn’t sound like he was pushing for a foul call.
...and you do...?...lol. I was standing there watching it unfold. Sorry I didn't realize you were there. To bad we didn't get the chance to meet.
I witnessed the event in person, and Hunter never called for a foul or a ref, even though he did in fact point out to Scott that he was touching the 6. Other than the head's up he provided Scott. Hunter never said a word throughout So if Hunter told Scott he was touching the 6 but made zero effort to have the foul enforced. What makes you think he intended to call the foul...?
I'm guessing, but as Hunter's sponsor. Maybe JB is getting the details from Hunter himself...? I'm speaking from the point of view of someone that witnessed the event unfold in person. You basing your insight on what exactly....?
The hate some have for Hunter is obvious. If he did indeed call a foul and get it enforced by the ref then the same group who says he was sharking by not calling a foul, would be lining him up to call him a nit or whatever the kid's are saying these days.
I can't speak for Hunter, but maybe...., just maybe. He didn't want to be a 'nit' by calling the foul, but also didn't want the 6's position to be potentially altered by the contact. The 6 wasn't in a good spot originally and the preceding shot was going to be a good one to get clean on it. I'm sure the same group that weren't there and also never hit a ball on the tables will tell me I'm wrong about my first hand experience and tell us all how I'm overstating how difficult the pockets were when playing with pace.
I can't recall how many times I've warned players of potential errors. Whether it be touching fouls, wrong order, wrong suit, whatever. If some want to believe I'm being stupid for doing so and I should watch players commit fouls so I can benefit, I'm ok with that. I don't expect the same generosity in return. I'm just not that cut throat I suppose. Although my opinion of Scott is not bad, and hasn't changed. My thoughts on Hunter have improved. I respect what did. ...and if some want to believe it was unsportsmanlike, then I'm still willing to declare I'm proud to be a player like he was on that day.
I can't speak for Hunter, but maybe...., just maybe. He didn't want to be a 'nit' by calling the foul, but also didn't want the 6's position to be potentially altered by the contact. The 6 wasn't in a good spot originally and the preceding shot was going to be a good one to get clean on it. I'm sure the same group that weren't there and also never hit a ball on the tables will tell me I'm wrong about my first hand experience and tell us all how I'm overstating how difficult the pockets were when playing with pace.
I can't recall how many times I've warned players of potential errors. Whether it be touching fouls, wrong order, wrong suit, whatever. If some want to believe I'm being stupid for doing so and I should watch players commit fouls so I can benefit, I'm ok with that. I don't expect the same generosity in return. I'm just not that cut throat I suppose. Although my opinion of Scott is not bad, and hasn't changed. My thoughts on Hunter have improved. I respect what did. ...and if some want to believe it was unsportsmanlike, then I'm still willing to declare I'm proud to be a player like he was on that day.
Again so informing someone they are fouling in the middle of running out the case game is not calling a foul? Yeah ok pal. If you aren’t calling the foul then shut up while your opponent is shooting! And it’s laughable to say Scott could get better position on said ball frozen to the rail by a shirt graze. Please explain the physics on that seeing you’re so smart.
You are right about one thing though Hunter was trying not to look like a nit by giving him a “heads up” that turned into a foul being called. If he never interrupts Scott the foul never occurs. I believe that was his intention all along but that is my opinion not fact like y’all claim! And just because you were there that doesn’t mean you know his intentions better then someone who was not. Human nature is human nature.
If it were me and I didn't want to call a foul in that situation I would stay quiet. If I wanted to call a foul and not sound like a nit I would tell the guy he was fouling in the middle of his shot but then let him know I was not calling a foul. Then I'd be sharking him. Get it?
Last edited: