You mean...like Hunter???
Hunter v Frost, your stance?
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
Yeah, pretty much. They both had an equal chance to win the tournament. None.
The Scott Frost/Hunter Lombardo issue was certainly bizarre. At first glance, Hunter seems like a piece of crap. However, I started thinking about it more and I'm not so sure anymore. Did the shirt touch? Who knows. But let's put ourselves in Hunter's shoes for a second and give him the benefit of the doubt that he did indeed see Scott's shirt touching the 6 ball.
From Hunter's perspective:
There is a lot on the line. This is the US Open. You've paid a big entry fee. You have major travel expenses. You're in contention for a Mosconi Cup spot. You've already lost one match and it's hill-hill. Stakes are high! So this is no casual match up where you're going to ignore a stupid rule and let the foul slide. All ball fouls apply and you expect everyone to follow the rules or face the consequences.
Scott is running out and you're staying quiet and respectful. Then Scott starts to lean over the 6 ball. You may consider calling a ref but it's not a close hit or anything so it would probably look like a shark move. You're sort of unsure if you should call a ref or not but then Scott stands back up and tucks in his shirt. With the shirt tucked in, you no longer anticipate an issue and also out of consideration for Scott, you sit still and just watch.
Then the shirt clearly touches. For the sake of this post, let's say it's more than just a quick touch, let's say it hangs there for a few seconds draped over the 6 ball. What do you do? You don't want to sound like a nit but the rules are pretty clear and there is a lot on the line.
Hunter didn't jump up to the table and shout "foul". He didn't even stand up or say "foul" at all. He simply said "You're touching the six". Notice that he didn't say "you touched the six", which would have been past tense. He used present tense, as if it's still currently happening as he speaks. This leads me to believe that it was longer than simple touch and go but rather a prolonged shirt touch (not that that matters anyways).
So now the ref comes over and Hunter is not argumentative or standing up trying to take a foul. He simply said what he saw and let the ref deal with it. What else can he do without being ostracized?
If Hunter truly saw the foul then I feel sorry for him. If he lied then I hope he burns in hell.
If this happened to me in a local gambling or tournament match I wouldn't call a foul. But I also don't play pool for a living or rely on good results to feed my family. So the situation is not the same at all. It's also worth noting that Hunter has a great reputation and has been known to call similar fouls on himself in the past.
The ruling from the ref is a different story all together. Typically the player at the table would have the final word regarding a foul or not. However, in this case Scott wasn't in a position to know whether or not his shirt touched. It's kind of a weird situation but I guess the ref made the only call that made sense. The rule is definitely open for abuse in the future.
It sucks to lose or win that way. I'm sure both players feel bad about it. But does Hunter really deserve all the hate? Not sure...
From Hunter's perspective:
There is a lot on the line. This is the US Open. You've paid a big entry fee. You have major travel expenses. You're in contention for a Mosconi Cup spot. You've already lost one match and it's hill-hill. Stakes are high! So this is no casual match up where you're going to ignore a stupid rule and let the foul slide. All ball fouls apply and you expect everyone to follow the rules or face the consequences.
Scott is running out and you're staying quiet and respectful. Then Scott starts to lean over the 6 ball. You may consider calling a ref but it's not a close hit or anything so it would probably look like a shark move. You're sort of unsure if you should call a ref or not but then Scott stands back up and tucks in his shirt. With the shirt tucked in, you no longer anticipate an issue and also out of consideration for Scott, you sit still and just watch.
Then the shirt clearly touches. For the sake of this post, let's say it's more than just a quick touch, let's say it hangs there for a few seconds draped over the 6 ball. What do you do? You don't want to sound like a nit but the rules are pretty clear and there is a lot on the line.
Hunter didn't jump up to the table and shout "foul". He didn't even stand up or say "foul" at all. He simply said "You're touching the six". Notice that he didn't say "you touched the six", which would have been past tense. He used present tense, as if it's still currently happening as he speaks. This leads me to believe that it was longer than simple touch and go but rather a prolonged shirt touch (not that that matters anyways).
So now the ref comes over and Hunter is not argumentative or standing up trying to take a foul. He simply said what he saw and let the ref deal with it. What else can he do without being ostracized?
If Hunter truly saw the foul then I feel sorry for him. If he lied then I hope he burns in hell.
If this happened to me in a local gambling or tournament match I wouldn't call a foul. But I also don't play pool for a living or rely on good results to feed my family. So the situation is not the same at all. It's also worth noting that Hunter has a great reputation and has been known to call similar fouls on himself in the past.
The ruling from the ref is a different story all together. Typically the player at the table would have the final word regarding a foul or not. However, in this case Scott wasn't in a position to know whether or not his shirt touched. It's kind of a weird situation but I guess the ref made the only call that made sense. The rule is definitely open for abuse in the future.
It sucks to lose or win that way. I'm sure both players feel bad about it. But does Hunter really deserve all the hate? Not sure...
i have a few comments
first what is the ref doing listening to the people in the audience
they should keep their nose out of the match
second why wasnt the second part of the highlighted rule posted above enforced?
Like your man hero is going to do anything....and he's out of this the next round
Why don't you figure out how you can bet something on Hunter Lombardo wining anything and bet high. Cuz I'd love to take your money. Guy made $8,400 this year playing pool. He's no worldbeater.
Last edited:
You'd make a fantastic witness....
Guy was told he's touching the ball....and he has no idea.
Being a real player he gets up and adjusts....asks Hunter to call a ref.
What more would you have him do at that point?
Ever have someone say something like you are touching that ball...during your shot?
It's distracting so yeah he's gonna get up and regroup.
I mean you are a player right? So you've been in this exact spot. What else would you have him do?
Scott should have just gotten the ref and that stops the opponent from any sharking or having the opponent playing referee. I do this routinely on close hits ect because it's better for me to cover myself.
Last edited:
something_pool
Registered
BRussell posted the following earlier in this thread and the second highlighted section should have prevailed in this situation which would have meant, No Foul. Worth noting imo is the random guy in the audience who said he saw the shirt touch the ball can not be considered a "trusted witness". Could have been Hunter's cousin for all she knew.
something_pool
Registered
I'm not sure what you don't understand here. Touching a ball during your shot constitutes a foul. You don't just get a do-over when you commit a foul -- you give up ball in hand. Wu Jia Qing lost in the finals of the US open a few years ago in a similar situation -- he accidentally touched the 4 ball for a split second when he was getting down to cue his shot. Should he have just been given a mulligan and gotten a chance to run out the rack? Maybe you're just used to only playing in gambling matches, but in professional sports, you don't get a pass for violating the rules.
To be truly woke i think the new term is 'non gender indentifying billiard official'.
This is a pretty long thread already, but here is my opinion. He was probably pretty close to touching the ball. I don't know if either Scott or Hunter could have said so definitively so I don't think a foul should have been called. However, I do think the ref was completely out of line. She took opinions from people in the audience and said if the player sitting in the chair said it was a foul, then it's a foul. When Scott objected, she talked to him like he was an idiot saying, "these are the rules of pool". I wish he would have just said, "since when", but it seemed like at that point, Scott didn't want to cause a scene and wanted to get out of there.
Pool without referees is a gentleman's game. Without two honorable people it is impossible to play.
The idea that the other player should remain in their chair and serve as referee is ridiculous. If you refuse to call your own fouls I will get over your shot if that is what is needed to call a shot. That is what an official ref does. There are other things I can do that make life a living hell for the other shooter too. Why am I playing shape so all you can see from your chair is my ass? Why do I keep jerking my head to look at you after I shoot? When playing an unscrupulous player I can turn a match into psychological warfare!
People who often play all fouls rules are aware of possibilities so Scott recognizing the possibility means nothing. That was the local rule gambling so I tucked my shirt getting over balls for years.
Scott has damaged his own reputation enough that I care little for the man. However it does seem a poor ref and a crowd member got him here, as well as some poorly worded rules.
Hu
The idea that the other player should remain in their chair and serve as referee is ridiculous. If you refuse to call your own fouls I will get over your shot if that is what is needed to call a shot. That is what an official ref does. There are other things I can do that make life a living hell for the other shooter too. Why am I playing shape so all you can see from your chair is my ass? Why do I keep jerking my head to look at you after I shoot? When playing an unscrupulous player I can turn a match into psychological warfare!
People who often play all fouls rules are aware of possibilities so Scott recognizing the possibility means nothing. That was the local rule gambling so I tucked my shirt getting over balls for years.
Scott has damaged his own reputation enough that I care little for the man. However it does seem a poor ref and a crowd member got him here, as well as some poorly worded rules.
Hu
Thanks!
If he was told he was touching a ball, I guess I'd have him give up BIH.
Scott has earned a reputation during his career. It's obviously not proof of any wrongdoing, but the fact that he accepted the decision with very little pushback, and then went on the stream saying that no one should be upset with Hunter for doing what he did makes me feel a little suspicious about what he did and didn't know.
With 4 balls on the table at this level of play, even if rules are all ball fouls. NO REF, if the shooter says he did not foul, there is no foul.
6 ball didn't move, therefore not affecting the outcome of the run out. This was a nit move and opens the door for other jerks in the future to call nit fouls.
6 ball didn't move, therefore not affecting the outcome of the run out. This was a nit move and opens the door for other jerks in the future to call nit fouls.
I think that many of you who bring up Scott's past sour behavior and applying it to this occurrence with suspicion are way out of line. He's wrong if he complains and he's guilty if he doesn't. Scott has grown a lot since those days and I give him credit for adjusting his ways.
Now to this incident. Some of you get it and some of you don't. I will address those of you who seem to think a foul is a foul is a foul. And right you are, but is that the point?
Let's first assume Hunter was right and Scott fouled with his shirt. Hunter called the foul but with the immense experience he has in tournament play he knows that close calls may be disputed by the opposing player. The sensible thing to do is call in the ref. He chose not to. Now Scott could have done the same thing and since Hunter didn't, in retrospect he should have. Scott could not possibly know if his shirt touched the ball so he cannot do much arguing about it, and he didn't. Good on him. Throughout the episode, Scott presented himself a perfect gentlemen and professional and to bring up past behavior is wrong. He continued to be that same gentleman and pro during the interview. Good on Scott once again.
As to Hunter, unfortunately there are no real winners in this one. Sure Hunter walks away with a victory but he is paying a price he or anyone else would not want to be saddled with. There will always be a camp that labels him with some derogatory term. Not me, Hunter did what he had to do. HIs only mistake was in not calling in a ref to make the call. The same mistake Scott made.
The real culprit in this one was the ref. Male or female, makes no difference of course. It is in knowing the rules and following them. She was not there to make a ruling and she should have been. She was not called in. Not her fault. That again was a joint failure by both Scott and Hunter. Scott needed to protect himself and Hunter needed to have an impartial make the call.
Well now we have the perfect storm. Two payers with conflicting opinions and a ref who listens to witnesses who may or may not be impeachable. Tie goes to the runner in these cases and that did not occur this time. There were more rules in play than just a touch foul this time.
Tom
Now to this incident. Some of you get it and some of you don't. I will address those of you who seem to think a foul is a foul is a foul. And right you are, but is that the point?
Let's first assume Hunter was right and Scott fouled with his shirt. Hunter called the foul but with the immense experience he has in tournament play he knows that close calls may be disputed by the opposing player. The sensible thing to do is call in the ref. He chose not to. Now Scott could have done the same thing and since Hunter didn't, in retrospect he should have. Scott could not possibly know if his shirt touched the ball so he cannot do much arguing about it, and he didn't. Good on him. Throughout the episode, Scott presented himself a perfect gentlemen and professional and to bring up past behavior is wrong. He continued to be that same gentleman and pro during the interview. Good on Scott once again.
As to Hunter, unfortunately there are no real winners in this one. Sure Hunter walks away with a victory but he is paying a price he or anyone else would not want to be saddled with. There will always be a camp that labels him with some derogatory term. Not me, Hunter did what he had to do. HIs only mistake was in not calling in a ref to make the call. The same mistake Scott made.
The real culprit in this one was the ref. Male or female, makes no difference of course. It is in knowing the rules and following them. She was not there to make a ruling and she should have been. She was not called in. Not her fault. That again was a joint failure by both Scott and Hunter. Scott needed to protect himself and Hunter needed to have an impartial make the call.
Well now we have the perfect storm. Two payers with conflicting opinions and a ref who listens to witnesses who may or may not be impeachable. Tie goes to the runner in these cases and that did not occur this time. There were more rules in play than just a touch foul this time.
Tom
This reminds of something that happens in boxing once in a while.
One boxer gets knocked out while trying to touch gloves with the other.
Legal knockout and a loss.
But, should the other guy have done that?
Then, the sad part of this sport is there is little money in it.
People fight for every dollar.
So, sometimes they resort to some iffy moves.
Like Alcano calling a foul on Shane by not calling the 10-ball that was inches from the side pocket.
One boxer gets knocked out while trying to touch gloves with the other.
Legal knockout and a loss.
But, should the other guy have done that?
Then, the sad part of this sport is there is little money in it.
People fight for every dollar.
So, sometimes they resort to some iffy moves.
Like Alcano calling a foul on Shane by not calling the 10-ball that was inches from the side pocket.
CaptainBly
Registered
This is not an unusual situation in PRO pool. Remember a few years ago at the turning stone, Shane called Johnny on a shirt foul, Kachi got a shirt foul in the Mosconi cup, I seem to rember an issue with Shaw as well but can't remember the exact situation right now. . This is not your APA league or a $20 weekly tournament where you play cue ball fouls only or one ball moved during your shot. You do not get to move the ball back or have your opponent move it back. Ask any pro, they will all say they want to play all ball fouls. This includes shirt fouls, hair fouls ( been called in the women's game multiple times), touching another ball with your stick, or dropping your chalk on the table and hitting another ball. Scot believes that he didn't touch it, Hunter says he did. They can both completely believe what they think they saw or felt. Scott can be completely honest in saying he never "felt" it touch and be right. Hunter can say he saw his shirt touching and be completely right. At the same time! Also they could both be wrong at the same time. From hunters view the shirt may have been blocking the ball, looking like it was touching yet from another angle actually not be. Scott's shirt could have touched the ball and he actually never felt it. I am impressed with how both players handled this as well. Hunter didn't jump up and yell foul! He simply said you are touching the 6 ball and let the ref handle it. Scott put up a respectful argument but didn't get heated, which would have been very easy to do in the moment. Hunter had every right and should have called that foul if he saw it happen. The attacks against him are unwarranted in my opinion. I have more respect for both players after this.
As for the ref, well I don't think she handled the situation great. Should have told the spectators to STF up or get out!
As for the ref, well I don't think she handled the situation great. Should have told the spectators to STF up or get out!
HelpMeScrubs0013
Active member
Yall comparing dumb shit an getting off topic about what happened