Hunter v Frost, your stance?

[The_JV]

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.

It was weird. The Ref's stance was that Scott's opinion was invalid because he'd have no way of knowing if he touch the ball with his shirt or not. The Ref did have a very valid point but I still think the tie needs to go to the shooter here. Hunter should (in my opinion) called the ref prior to Scott addressing the shot

 

[SBC]

In real pool you admit when you touch a ball....BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT HAPPENS THE CALL GOES TO THE SHOOTER.

If there's no ref that saw it happen THE CALL GOES TO THE SHOOTER.

Scott is a gambler....and is a legend
The other guy is a robot and has to do what he has to do to win.

 

[SBC]

It was weird. The Ref's stance was that Scott's opinion was invalid because he'd have no way of knowing if he touch the ball with his shirt or not. The Ref did have a very valid point but I still think the tie needs to go to the shooter here. Hunter should (in my opinion) called the ref prior to Scott addressing the shot

Exactly , call the ref ahead or you are just pulling moves.

Otherwise Hunter could have stopped him, saying, "you are touching the ball"...then Frost gets up and shoots.

Scott told him to call a ref and he didn't.

What happened was wrong by every measure of how real pool is played.

 

[SBC]

Possibly. But I also think that if Scott was playing an elite player on a non-streamed match, and the elite player called the foul, he doesn't fight the call, because he knows fans are gonna trust the elite pro. I can very much see Scott fighting a correct call against a player he "feels he should not lose to".

It's a crappy situation, but I know Hunter, and if he says Scott fouled, he fouled. And Scott should have admitted it. He tucked in his shirt before the shot, so he definitely knew a foul was possible.

By elite pro you mean Scott Frost?

 

[SBC]

Is there a video link?

In general though, calling a foul like that might give too much power to the opponent. Can you imagine if every opponent called foul every shot just sitting from their chair? It's possible if the rules make the opponent the ref.

...and that's exactly why this is the wrong call

 

[SBC]

My understanding is that it is not a foul if you touch the ball and give the player the option to leave it or move it back!

Additionally, the ref is obligated to position himself in a place to make the call. The fact that the player was seated behind the shooter and had no way to make the call and never escalated it to a designated ref!

Given, the money difference between winner and loser of that match! FROZEN was robbed ....


Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Probably you can't be on the ball in the process of shooting....because that's a shooting foul.

Totally agree that the opponent can't make this call and for sure the ref who didn't see it can't take the opponent's opinion as fact.

 

[SBC]

In Europe? They play all ball fouls in pretty much every higher level league match, and in a lot, if not most, tournaments they play. And they tend to call these fouls on themselves. American players are spoiled, because you have so many players that will refuse to call a foul on themselves, that a lot of American tournament directors changed to cue ball foul only, to stop arguments.

So the Euros have special shirts that tell you when you brush a ball?
No wonder why we can't beat them at Mosconi.

 

[smoochie]

lol he was saying that Hohmann is also an instructor.

didn't got it, I deleted my whole post...edit ur quote pls I always try not to talk about instructors in these forums, I try very hard.

 

[SBC]

So many times, the ref acknowledges they did not see the shot!

They acknowledge that their view was obscured.

Making a call is not a guessing game! You MUST visually see the situation! The 'I heard a double click sound' is not grounds for calling a foul. You truly must witness it......

Kd



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Because the ref isn't a judge as much as he's a witness.

You got people here deciding this based on Scott's personality, whether he's a nice person, loves Jesus, pays taxes and says his prayers.....and you wonder why pool is going nowhere.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

So the Euros have special shirts that tell you when you brush a ball?
No wonder why we can't beat them at Mosconi.

No, they have players they play against that tell them when they foul with their shirt, and they don't argue the point, and just give up ball in hand.

And let's keep in mind.. It wasn't Hunter that called a foul. He never called a foul. He simply warned Frosty that he was touching a ball. He did not attempt to take ball in hand after that. It was just a warning to watch his shirt. It was actually Frost arguing the point that brought it to the ref's attention, and ended up resulting in the foul being called.

 

[SBC]

W

This is crazy. No integrity violation for following rules, I'd argue the opposite. I actually respect Hunter more after this. I always thought he was kind of a "P-word", now I think he's got a big set

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.

Exactly
Pool isn't a popularity contest to be decided by the player with the nicer crew.

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.

He was touching the ball AS he shot.

Zugkan will let you touch a ball...opponent get option to put it back....then you shoot.

What torched Johnny is that Shane waiting to call it after he shot....which is obviously the smart way to handle it but ain't making friends.

 

[Sheldon]

You got people here deciding this based on Scott's personality, whether he's a nice person, loves Jesus, pays taxes and says his prayers.....and you wonder why pool is going nowhere.

Even more disappointing are the people posting all about what a scumbag hunter is when they have zero clue.
I don't know the guy, but from what I've heard from people that do, his integrity is sound.

 

[SBC]

I didn't see it, I'm staying out of it.

If I'm not playing I'm staying out of it. Done this many times with money on the line.

Jason .... old school pool logic is about dead and gone. Cuz we are the next generation of pool dinosaurs.

 

[SBC]

Even more disappointing are the people posting all about what a scumbag hunter is when they have zero clue.
I don't know the guy, but from what I've heard from people that do, his integrity is sound.

I've been around him enough to know he's no scumbag....more of an arrogant douche 3rd level pro.

 

[SBC]

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?

No doubt that's concerning close hits.

I always call someone impartial to watch a very close hit....helps me focus on the shot and not my opponent staring at the shot.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

By elite pro you mean Scott Frost?

Yeah.. If Scott "was playing with himself". :rollseyes

Why are you pretending not to know what I mean on every single post? It is getting tiresome. You can disagree with me all you like, but don't play dumb. It's tiresome.

If Scott was playing Ko Pin Yi, and Ko Pin Yi called a foul on him for allowing his shirt to touch a ball, and there are a ton of fans around... You think Scott argues? I.e. "if Scott is playing an elite pro".....

 

[ShortBusRuss]

W



Exactly
Pool isn't a popularity contest to be decided by the player with the nicer crew.

He was touching the ball AS he shot.

Zugkan will let you touch a ball...opponent get option to put it back....then you shoot.

What torched Johnny is that Shane waiting to call it after he shot....which is obviously the smart way to handle it but ain't making friends.

Good for Zuglan. He is perfectly welcome to set non "all ball foul" rules as he likes.

What does that have to do with the Matchroom "all ball foul" rules?

 

[SBC]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=633945775526912

I just watched this....

How can anybody think this was correct?
This isn't how the US Open or any premier sporting event should be decided.
Pooling the audience?
Letting the opponent make calls?
Lady ref lecturing Scott.....who's trying to present his side?
Pool is a dumpster fire.

Here's what I saw:
Scott is trying to play and being shared.

He gets up and asks Hunter to just call the ref over ( but otherwise let him shoot).

Then Hunter calls the foul from his chair while his crew supports him.

 

[SBC]

Scott concede

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.

Scott conceded out of obvious disgust for the situation.

 

[BRussell]

I just watched this....

How can anybody think this was correct?
This isn't how the US Open or any premier sporting event should be decided.
Pooling the audience?
Letting the opponent make calls?
Lady ref lecturing Scott.....who's trying to present his side?
Pool is a dumpster fire.

Here's what I saw:
Scott is trying to play and being shared.

He gets up and asks Hunter to just call the ref over ( but otherwise let him shoot).

Then Hunter calls the foul from his chair while his crew supports him.

lol you’re being a bit of a drama queen here. The ref made a bad call, it happens in every sport all the time, it doesn’t make a dumpster fire.