GeeEEEeeez.. Lay a board over the friggin balls. Piece uh Lucite. Only spitting on it would be a foul...
Hunter v Frost, your stance?
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
To me it seems just the opposite. Where is the profit in letting someone out of prison after only 7 years of incarceration for murder or homicide?? A lot of people like to reference drug dealers when saying our justice system is for profit but drug dealers are still breaking the law and a great deal of them have committed far worse crimes than drug dealing, they just didnt get caught.
Yup. And interesting aside on that.... WWII documentaries that don't reflect well on Germany are popular here, and air quite often. Almost like the entire citizenry acknowledges that they did some very bad things in the past, and want to be reminded of same, so as to not repeat the same mistakes in the future. Unlike some other countries that try to whitewash their past.
Germans are VERY cautious about letting rabid nationalism take hold in their country again. America has not learned that lesson yet, but will eventually have to. I just hope the nation survives that eventual reckoning.
Everyone has a differering opinions as to morals and integrity in regards to the written rules. For example, in our weekly handicapped tournament I absolutely refuse to ever try to win a game or match by 3-fouling an opponent of the lowest ranking we have, even though it’s certainly within our rules to do so. I’ve seen other high ranked players win matches by doing exactly that against a beginner level player, and they don’t seem to give it a second thought.
Another example would be failing to inform your opponent that they forgot to mark up their game, if you know for a fact that they did forget to.
Or how about seeing that your opponent is about to shoot at the wrong ball in 9-ball, and failing to stop to inform them and then calling them for the foul immediately after they shoot. I recall this being discussed on here recently and I was a bit surprised by how many felt it was wrong to stop them from shooting at the wrong ball.
Last edited:
Yeah, and cops have raided pool gambling jamborees, too. And confiscated all the money on everyone. When they literally weren't hurting anybody, and were just a bunch of freedom-loving Americans doing their thang. A lot of laws in America are put in place for no other reason than to make money. Or simply because local authorities are ignorant as hell.
"Freedom" in America is a much lauded concept, but unfortunately, does not necessarily always live up to the hype.
You are doing the lower level players a disservice by not encouraging them to develop specific parts of their game that would prevent them being vulnerable to three fouls. It's simply a natural part of the game.
Not telling your opponent they forgot to mark a game is very much a more clear cut ethics issue.
Chain of Events
I’ve listened to the audio extremely carefully. Hunter says very little. He tells Scott he’s touching the six. Scott says he’s not. Hunter says to just watch it. Scott says to have a ref watch it. And that’s about the last thing Hunter says. Scott starts debating it with the fans. Area ref comes over and asks what’s going on. Scott tells her Hunter said he touched the six. She ruled (incorrectly) on that information immediately. In the entire exchange I never heard Hunter call foul. And I never heard him argue with Scott or the ref for the foul. He just sat there quietly as Scott, the ref and the fans talked. Listening to the actual words spoken, Scott effectively called the foul on himself in his efforts to (calmly) argue the situation.
My God the Fans
I don't like that fans inserted themselves into the process. If the ref wants to ask the audience they can. But they should not involve themselves into the match uninvited. And they shouldn't be vocally debating their understanding of the rules loudly amongst each other, with the players, and with the referee.
The Incorrect Referee
And ultimately the referee ruled incorrectly. The non-shooting player is acting as the referee. But we all know that is there to put some onus on the opponent be engaged to call out fouls as opposed to solely relying on the shooting player to call fouls on themself. That's not meant to be an authoritative situation. The rules clearly indicate an area ref should rule on any dispute, take into consideration as much evidence they can gather, and ultimately favor the shooter if there's not evidence they can operate off of. And in another match with Mario He, I heard that is how it went down. And it wasn't a good look when she started interrupting Scott challengingly.
Matchroom Rules
Emily criticized WPA rules as the cause of this inconsistency. But honestly the WPA rules were reasonable, and the issue is that they weren't employed properly in this situation. I got the sense there might end up being a WPNPC set of rules as an outcome of this. I don't think this situation justifies it, but I do trust Matchroom will sit down, discuss the situation, and come up with a solution that better handles it in the future. Also WPA has regulations that would have allowed Scott to protest the ruling whereas Matchroom has their own conflicting/overriding regulation that says area referee rulings can be protested to a senior referee. Since she was a senior referee it couldn't be protested. That's a scenario where the WPA regulation would have offered Scott better protection as a player than the WPNPC version.
Hunter
What should Hunter have done? He was a lot more passive in the situation than people give him credit for. It would have looked better to many if he advocated for the ref to let Scott shoot and have her watch his shirt. It would have looked worse if he actively advocated for the foul. He could have refused to take ball in hand. But ultimately I believe you have referees for a reason. It's to absolve the players from the responsibility of the decision. I will never fault a player for proceeding with a referees decision. I think the alternative is not a good precedent.
Scott
And of course, who doesn't feel bad for Scott, the ultimate victim in the situation. (Personally I actually believe his shirt touched the ball both times. I don't think Hunter is the kind of guy to lie about that.) The referee should have ruled differently. It affected his match. And he really did keep his composure in a situation most of us would not have.
I’ve listened to the audio extremely carefully. Hunter says very little. He tells Scott he’s touching the six. Scott says he’s not. Hunter says to just watch it. Scott says to have a ref watch it. And that’s about the last thing Hunter says. Scott starts debating it with the fans. Area ref comes over and asks what’s going on. Scott tells her Hunter said he touched the six. She ruled (incorrectly) on that information immediately. In the entire exchange I never heard Hunter call foul. And I never heard him argue with Scott or the ref for the foul. He just sat there quietly as Scott, the ref and the fans talked. Listening to the actual words spoken, Scott effectively called the foul on himself in his efforts to (calmly) argue the situation.
My God the Fans
I don't like that fans inserted themselves into the process. If the ref wants to ask the audience they can. But they should not involve themselves into the match uninvited. And they shouldn't be vocally debating their understanding of the rules loudly amongst each other, with the players, and with the referee.
The Incorrect Referee
And ultimately the referee ruled incorrectly. The non-shooting player is acting as the referee. But we all know that is there to put some onus on the opponent be engaged to call out fouls as opposed to solely relying on the shooting player to call fouls on themself. That's not meant to be an authoritative situation. The rules clearly indicate an area ref should rule on any dispute, take into consideration as much evidence they can gather, and ultimately favor the shooter if there's not evidence they can operate off of. And in another match with Mario He, I heard that is how it went down. And it wasn't a good look when she started interrupting Scott challengingly.
Matchroom Rules
Emily criticized WPA rules as the cause of this inconsistency. But honestly the WPA rules were reasonable, and the issue is that they weren't employed properly in this situation. I got the sense there might end up being a WPNPC set of rules as an outcome of this. I don't think this situation justifies it, but I do trust Matchroom will sit down, discuss the situation, and come up with a solution that better handles it in the future. Also WPA has regulations that would have allowed Scott to protest the ruling whereas Matchroom has their own conflicting/overriding regulation that says area referee rulings can be protested to a senior referee. Since she was a senior referee it couldn't be protested. That's a scenario where the WPA regulation would have offered Scott better protection as a player than the WPNPC version.
Hunter
What should Hunter have done? He was a lot more passive in the situation than people give him credit for. It would have looked better to many if he advocated for the ref to let Scott shoot and have her watch his shirt. It would have looked worse if he actively advocated for the foul. He could have refused to take ball in hand. But ultimately I believe you have referees for a reason. It's to absolve the players from the responsibility of the decision. I will never fault a player for proceeding with a referees decision. I think the alternative is not a good precedent.
Scott
And of course, who doesn't feel bad for Scott, the ultimate victim in the situation. (Personally I actually believe his shirt touched the ball both times. I don't think Hunter is the kind of guy to lie about that.) The referee should have ruled differently. It affected his match. And he really did keep his composure in a situation most of us would not have.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned.
IMO: Don't play "All ball fouls", unless every table has a ref on duty and watching intently.
IMO: Don't play "All ball fouls", unless every table has a ref on duty and watching intently.
Posted this on the other thread about the tournament:
A couple of Turning Stone's ago, Shane was playing.....I think if was Johnny Archer. Johnny had on a sweater kind of thing over his shirt, and on a shot where he was leaning out over the table, Shane called him for his sleeve touching another ball. Johnny had the material pushed up past his elbows and it was that "elbow to armpit" area that touched. Didn't look like anything moved, but Shane called it and it was ruled a foul. Seemed like Johnny was extremely unhappy with that turn of events, but didn't make a scene.
I believe that Mike Zuglan now has cue ball fouls only at the TS events, and I'm guessing that call is why.
Skogstokig correctly posted that Johnny conceded and left after that.
A couple of Turning Stone's ago, Shane was playing.....I think if was Johnny Archer. Johnny had on a sweater kind of thing over his shirt, and on a shot where he was leaning out over the table, Shane called him for his sleeve touching another ball. Johnny had the material pushed up past his elbows and it was that "elbow to armpit" area that touched. Didn't look like anything moved, but Shane called it and it was ruled a foul. Seemed like Johnny was extremely unhappy with that turn of events, but didn't make a scene.
I believe that Mike Zuglan now has cue ball fouls only at the TS events, and I'm guessing that call is why.
Skogstokig correctly posted that Johnny conceded and left after that.
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.
Last edited:
Tend to agree here. Picture a boxing match where the fighters made the calls. I know this is an extreme comparison but you get my drift.
I think a lot of that originated from the organized crime days who were very guilty of breaking a great deal of laws, maybe some stuff needs to be rewritten to make it a little more relevant for the times.
I couldn't agree more! Unfortunately, there are a lot of politicians dead set on keeping things exactly how they have been for decades, simply because they pander to voters who are unwilling to accept that social mores change.
No all ball fouls if there isn't a referee for every table
Let me correct that for you. "if I need some
Eh. Me, for one. Having played Scott before at Derby, he's not the most "sportsmanlike" type guy, unless he is on a stream against a great player, with the world watching. That sort of behavior can have consequences. Watching fans may not be as willing to take your side.
That being said, I hope Matchroom clarifies the rules as far as this type of situation is concerned. I do think Americans need to get used to playing a "cleaner" game, and having played in German league system for the last 7 years, I like all ball fouls.
All you say about the situation very much jibes with my experiences with Hunter Lombardo. He is not the sort of player to try to pull a move.
Agreed, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that would eliminate a lot of potential conflicts such as this. Hopefully going forward, this incident may result in them changing this policy for this tournament.
Scott did not turn around 180 degrees. He rotated his neck and was able to see Hunter. Given where Hunter was sitting based on where Scott turned his head to it is very clear to me that Hunter could've seen the foul.
That's all I have to say about that.
If it's all ball fouls, then it's all ball fouls, end of story.
but but but integrity and nitty /s