soyale
Well-known member
sorry that was not my intention. i wasnt trying to slight hunter, moreso just that i think your opponent reffing is a crummy rule.
Hunter v Frost, your stance?
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
I was playing in a small 8 ball tournament years ago at a local bar and I called a similar foul (the odd bar table with all ball fouls). I kind of regretted it and in hindsight it was a bit nitty of me to call it. But that was a small tournament, I might feel differently if it were for high stakes
Last edited:
i've called the ref/TD in a similar circumstance. there are certain body types and ball layouts where you can see it coming. he didn't take it as a shark move (probably happened before with that belly). he ended up using the bridge
something_pool
Registered
Not calling it when your opponent commits a foul doesn't mean you have more integrity. It just means you're going to lose more matches.
something_pool
Registered
That's not how any sports work. If you violate a rule in a sporting competition, then your opponent can call you on it and you get penalized. If you think the rule is wrong, then you should argue to change the rule. But in a game or match situation, you can't just pick and choose which rules you want to follow and which you don't.
Gonna grant that Scott often has not been ''mr popular" with good reason. Gonna grant he has pulled his share of moves over the years too. However the rules should have favored the shooter here. An observer should have been agreed on and in place before the shot. Failing that, or a ball clearly moving, shooter gets the call.
Hard call but the bit of video seems to indicate the ref made a hasty decision that might have been partially caused by bias. Regardless, too important a decision to be arrived at hastily.
Hu
Hard call but the bit of video seems to indicate the ref made a hasty decision that might have been partially caused by bias. Regardless, too important a decision to be arrived at hastily.
Hu
Feels like everyone is missing the part of the rulebook that says "If, prior to a particular shot, the shooting player feels that his opponent will not be able to properly judge the shot, he should ask the area referee to watch the shot".
Doesn't that mean it's on Scott to call over a ref in this instance?
Doesn't that mean it's on Scott to call over a ref in this instance?
Doesn’t that same option / responsibility to call in a referee apply to the seated opponent?
The rules do say that the ref should rely on “trusted witnesses.”
in gambling if you call something like that, your opponent will quit you.
but tournaments are a game of rules. and all rules are to be enforced. and it isnt nitty to call any rule on your opponent.
actually it is smart to.
and agree if they aren't putting a ref on each table it should be cue ball fouls only. but it is not what they are doing.
and scotts fault as he tucked his shirt in so he new it could be a factor but was too quick to want to run out.
and dumb for not arguing more and demanding another ref. and a higher up decision. and having hunter verbally call the foul on him.
but tournaments are a game of rules. and all rules are to be enforced. and it isnt nitty to call any rule on your opponent.
actually it is smart to.
and agree if they aren't putting a ref on each table it should be cue ball fouls only. but it is not what they are doing.
and scotts fault as he tucked his shirt in so he new it could be a factor but was too quick to want to run out.
and dumb for not arguing more and demanding another ref. and a higher up decision. and having hunter verbally call the foul on him.
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.
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.
I agree.
If you think there might be a foul by your opponent you call ref. Opponent is the ref, ask the spectators... Big Time BS and an ignorant call by the official.
Lou Figueroa
Lambardo looked so bad winning it, I wouldn't do that to Scott or anyone. He even had the time to call the referee if you watch the video Scott stood up two times to put his shirt in, during this time you could have called the referee easily.
Let me get this off my chest as well, Lambardo to me is a guy who joins every single major tournament cause he got the money to do so "Somehow" but he never did well in any of them, for years and I've wondered how on earth he could afford the entry fee's for all these tournaments when he don't do well and it boggled my mind and never knew how...he's probably from rich family thats the only way. So with this in mind he probably needs some of this stuff to happen to him so he could win a little bit, maybe advance deeper this time in a tournament.
The Most prestigious event for the US, and a UK group touting to promote Pool to the next level, and they Can't afford to have Ref's on Every table!
Now, that is what's sad!
Now, that is what's sad!
i think he is a pool instructor in a high rent area. has worked out well for guys like hohmann etc. but i heard there is one "older" USA player financed by his family and he goes to all these events
Not going to bother reading the thread.
The facts are this. Scott not once but twice touched the ball with his shirt. Hunter did not call anything the first time. After Scott made his shirt adjustment and then repeated the foul, it was called. I was there and one of shadows in the previously linked video.
The crappy part about this is how the situation played out. Regardless of the weird, "guy in chair is the acting ref" rule that seemed to be employed. Typically if potential for a foul seems likely. One of the players will call for a ref to monitor the shot. Why this was not done. I have no clue.
In my humble opinion. Scott lost due to a foul that he committed. That's reality....
How that situation was managed by both Hunter and the MR ref was odd.
Still a foul. Scott owned it. Good on him. Hunter didn't break any rule that I'm aware of. That said, why the ref enforced a subjective call that was witnessed only by spectators is beyond me.
The facts are this. Scott not once but twice touched the ball with his shirt. Hunter did not call anything the first time. After Scott made his shirt adjustment and then repeated the foul, it was called. I was there and one of shadows in the previously linked video.
The crappy part about this is how the situation played out. Regardless of the weird, "guy in chair is the acting ref" rule that seemed to be employed. Typically if potential for a foul seems likely. One of the players will call for a ref to monitor the shot. Why this was not done. I have no clue.
In my humble opinion. Scott lost due to a foul that he committed. That's reality....
How that situation was managed by both Hunter and the MR ref was odd.
Still a foul. Scott owned it. Good on him. Hunter didn't break any rule that I'm aware of. That said, why the ref enforced a subjective call that was witnessed only by spectators is beyond me.
The fact is that in this situation, there is absolutely no incentive for Hunter to call a referee to the table to observe the shot. If he does so, then Scott would have been careful enough not to touch the ball with his shirt, and there’s a 90+% chance that Scott makes that shot, runs out and wins the match, simple as that. I can’t think of a worse possible scenario to win a match.
Last edited:
Name a tourney ran by a US group that has a ref at every table...?
They have a ref for every group of 4 tables. 1 for the two streamed tables and it seems 3 to 4 other walking the floor helping out those assigned to sections. If something needs to be monitored it takes miniscule effort by a player to have it dealt with.
Stop blaming MR for everything you don't like.
Yeah, I think people are wrong to give Hunter such a hard time. As far as I know, there’s no reason to believe that he was lying.
It was the ref that made a mistake here. The rules say that, yes, the seated player acts as a “ref,” but if there’s a disagreement, and the (real) ref has no basis for deciding and no other info, then no foul. If there was ever a case for the ref not taking sides and the call going to the shooter, this was it.