Hunter v Frost, your stance?

garczar said:
We always play 1p where moving one ball is no foul with opponent's option to move it back and moving two/more balls IS a foul with same option to move back. No issues.
Click to expand...
Derby, that happened during the shot process, with me the opponent not given the option!

Told no foul! since during the shot, it is impossible to recreate and move back! Told play on!

Moved the ball 6 feet! Ref said didn't cross the path of the moving balls!

I said it's an automatic foul if you move something and deny the opponent the option!

It was ugly ! Ball in the way , move it shot and no foul!

Ref didn't understand the difference in the rules when ball is moved prior to the shot versus during the shot process....

There is a difference...


Kd



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
Kid Dynomite said:
Derby, that happened during the shot process, with me the opponent not given the option!

Told no foul! since during the shot, it is impossible to recreate and move back! Told play on!

Moved the ball 6 feet! Ref said didn't cross the path of the moving balls!

I said it's an automatic foul if you move something and deny the opponent the option!

It was ugly ! Ball in the way , move it shot and no foul!

Ref didn't understand the difference in the rules when ball is moved prior to the shot versus during the shot process....

There is a difference...


Kd



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That's brutal.
 
FranCrimi said:
Yes, That was Mark Griffin's group after purchasing the BCA leagues. They took rules that were in existence at the time as their basis, and then got more specific. CSI -- Cue Sports International was I believe their pro end of their organization. Before the formation of CSI, both the men and women pros in the U.S. were already playing by these rules, but CSI did a good job of making them clearer and particularly tailored them for their leagues to avoid controversies.

The WPA knew about these rules and confronted Mark Griffin. They were not happy that the U.S. players were not playing by their rules. Mark explained to them that the players will play by their own rules when in the U.S. and will abide by WPA all ball foul rules when required to do so in internationally WPA sanctioned events. I was there when that conversation took place, so these rules were not some secret hidden rules that no one knew about. Everyone knew, and they absolutely make sense when there is no referee presiding over the match.

The Europeans were adamantly against them ---- infuriated by them, actually. A few key people from Europe really overreacted and refused to even entertain the idea of cue ball fouls only rules. I directly witnessed that as well. I won't name names, but I still remember vividly how I was screamed at for agreeing with Mark. They were worried that when their players come here to compete, they may go back to Europe wanting to play cue ball fouls only. Their words, not mine.

As a reminder: It's not all ball foul rules that we take issue with. It's when there isn't a presiding referee that it becomes problematic and unfair for the players.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Shoves me a little further on the American end of the spectrum. 😎
 
SBC said:
I would be astonished if that ref understood how to make that call. That's what was most obvious on the video.
Click to expand...
Agree. I know nothing about this ref. But I surmise playing just a little $10 one pocket or live poker would be an educational experience for her. Like maybe if somebody who wasn’t in a hand said something and cost her a bet or a pot…. Just guessing.
 
Kid Dynomite said:
Derby, that happened during the shot process, with me the opponent not given the option!

Told no foul! since during the shot, it is impossible to recreate and move back! Told play on!

Moved the ball 6 feet! Ref said didn't cross the path of the moving balls!

I said it's an automatic foul if you move something and deny the opponent the option!

It was ugly ! Ball in the way , move it shot and no foul!

Ref didn't understand the difference in the rules when ball is moved prior to the shot versus during the shot process....

There is a difference...


Kd



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We have all lost to the officials instead of the opponent sometimes. Few things worse than having to tell a young person or youth team that there was three teams on the field and there wasn't any recourse for an unfair loss.

Garczar said it well, brutal is the word when you lose due to a malicious or incompetent official.

Hu
 
problem is, it isnt easy to get good officials at any cost. as long as they rule constantly and the same for both sides then its equal for all even if they make some bad rulings.
we have to take the good and the bad in rulings. the bad for us we get mad, the good we think is just fine.

she ruled too quickly and scott was acquiescent too soon. his fault although i think he knew he probably did touch the ball.
 
ShootingArts said:
We have all lost to the officials instead of the opponent sometimes. Few things worse than having to tell a young person or youth team that there was three teams on the field and there wasn't any recourse for an unfair loss.

Garczar said it well, brutal is the word when you lose due to a malicious or incompetent official.

Hu
Click to expand...
The problem is the player knew better!


It was a move!

A move the ref went for hook line and sinker!

Ignorance is one thing! But, this sit wrong with me! Being a minority I don't expect the benefit of the doubt! So, if there is any ambiguity, i am not expecting much!

Integrity and honor are missing !

No consequences! The rules should never award anything not earned! Malicious intent must exist for any foul! A shirt foul is Malicious intent how???

Scott's opponent knows nothing Malicious about it and knows he didn't earn the victory!

So, what should be his punishment ???

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
Kid Dynomite said:
The problem is the player knew better!


It was a move!

A move the ref went for hook line and sinker!

Ignorance is one thing! But, this sit wrong with me! Being a minority I don't expect the benefit of the doubt! So, if there is any ambiguity, i am not expecting much!

Integrity and honor are missing !

No consequences! The rules should never award anything not earned! Malicious intent must exist for any foul! A shirt foul is Malicious intent how???

Scott's opponent knows nothing Malicious about it and knows he didn't earn the victory!

So, what should be his punishment ???

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Kid, being a minority may have burned you, so can being a stranger from afar or having longish hair and a beard fifty years ago. If you had a beard it had better be gray or you were a damned hippie and disliked in small town and rural America. I could write a book about raw deals. I wasn't pretty or rich and fancy so I learned to stay away from judged activities.

One bitter chuckle, "stranger from afar" could be as little as three miles! I played a pool tournament three miles from one I played weekly and came very close to getting mobbed! I had to deliberately lose to get out of there in one piece.

Hu
 
Kid Dynomite said:
The problem is the player knew better!


It was a move!

A move the ref went for hook line and sinker!

Ignorance is one thing! But, this sit wrong with me! Being a minority I don't expect the benefit of the doubt! So, if there is any ambiguity, i am not expecting much!

Integrity and honor are missing !

No consequences! The rules should never award anything not earned! Malicious intent must exist for any foul! A shirt foul is Malicious intent how???

Scott's opponent knows nothing Malicious about it and knows he didn't earn the victory!

So, what should be his punishment ???

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Oh please, give me a break. A forum member was watching the match live and said Scott clearly fouled the ball when leaning over. They were playing all ball fouls, so Scott "deserved" to have given up bih.

Hunter saw the foul but did not "call" it, and Scott brought it on himself by grandstanding a bit, bringing the situation to the ref's attention by continuing to talk about it. Ref asked Hunter and Scott what happened, they told her, and ref decided to trust the crowd, which was also saying it was a foul. Within her right to choose what a "trusted witness" means.

Scott clearly fouled, and he had to give up bih. I don't see even a glimmer of a problem. All our leagues in Germany play by all ball fouls, and it never turns into this fake drama. Opponent calls a foul, it was a foul. We don't have an issue, because everybody plays with integrity and nobody is ever gonna call an imaginary foul. This is uniquely an American problem, brought on by allowing pros to play by CB fouls only, so they get used to touching balls without punishment.
 
All referees make mistakes from time to time. Without commenting on whether a mistake was made in this instance, I'll let you know that the ref in this situation was Desislava Bozhilova. She has been refereeing high-level pool matches for several years and is an accomplished snooker referee as well: https://wst.tv/corporate/referees/desislava-bozhilova/
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
ShortBusRuss said:
Oh please, give me a break. A forum member was watching the match live and said Scott clearly fouled the ball when leaning over. They were playing all ball fouls, so Scott "deserved" to have given up bih.

Hunter saw the foul but did not "call" it, and Scott brought it on himself by grandstanding a bit, bringing the situation to the ref's attention by continuing to talk about it. Ref asked Hunter and Scott what happened, they told her, and ref decided to trust the crowd, which was also saying it was a foul. Within her right to choose what a "trusted witness" means.

Scott clearly fouled, and he had to give up bih. I don't see even a glimmer of a problem. All our leagues in Germany play by all ball fouls, and it never turns into this fake drama. Opponent calls a foul, it was a foul. We don't have an issue, because everybody plays with integrity and nobody is ever gonna call an imaginary foul. This is uniquely an American problem, brought on by allowing pros to play by CB fouls only, so they get used to touching balls without punishment.
Click to expand...

No one in Germany lies and all citizens always do the right thing lol. I guess there is no crimes there either. Please stop continually stating opinion as fact you sound foolish!
 
nicksaint26 said:
No one in Germany lies and all citizens always do the right thing lol. I guess there is no crimes there either. Please stop continually stating opinion as fact you sound foolish!
Click to expand...
No doubt. I have friends that were in the Army not long ago that spent a lot of time in Ger. What they described wasn't near the love-in utopia this guy describes. For some reason he has a hard-on for the US and knocks it everytime he can. I put him on perma-ignore.
 
AtLarge said:
All referees make mistakes from time to time. Without commenting on whether a mistake was made in this instance, I'll let you know that the ref in this situation was Desislava Bozhilova. She has been refereeing high-level pool matches for several years and is an accomplished snooker referee as well: https://wst.tv/corporate/referees/desislava-bozhilova/
Click to expand...
For sure an experienced ref, but nothing wrong with saying she made a mistake here. The WPA rules, which Matchroom says they use, clearly state that if a ref wasn’t present and the players disagree on whether it was a foul, the ruling is that there was no foul.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
Oh please, give me a break. A forum member was watching the match live and said Scott clearly fouled the ball when leaning over. They were playing all ball fouls, so Scott "deserved" to have given up bih.

Hunter saw the foul but did not "call" it, and Scott brought it on himself by grandstanding a bit, bringing the situation to the ref's attention by continuing to talk about it. Ref asked Hunter and Scott what happened, they told her, and ref decided to trust the crowd, which was also saying it was a foul. Within her right to choose what a "trusted witness" means.

Scott clearly fouled, and he had to give up bih. I don't see even a glimmer of a problem. All our leagues in Germany play by all ball fouls, and it never turns into this fake drama. Opponent calls a foul, it was a foul. We don't have an issue, because everybody plays with integrity and nobody is ever gonna call an imaginary foul. This is uniquely an American problem, brought on by allowing pros to play by CB fouls only, so they get used to touching balls without punishment.
Click to expand...
You call that justice!


Good to know !

I do not .....

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
The rule itself is an embarrassment to pool and anyone who calls a foul on their opponent for such an offense is an embarrassment of a pool player.
It's the same thing with removing balls from the pockets before the last ball stops rolling.
It's a foul with no victim or offender.
As someone who is not playing for food, I have stopped my opponents from shooting the wrong ball in money matches and in tournaments.
I don't care what people think about that. I will not win a rack/match on a technicality like that.

To demand ball in hand for someone's arm hair or a thread on their shirt having rested upon, or grazed the top of a ball -without moving it, is beyond petty.
Those people should just buy trophies for themselves and not compete at all.
I promise to not fact-check their accomplishments.
If Hunter called a foul, I hope he goes two and out at every event from here.
If he just told him to make him aware, and allowed Scott to continue, (prior to the ref being called over and making the wrong call), I'll remain neutral.
 
Last edited:
JolietJames said:
The rule itself is an embarrassment to pool and anyone who calls a foul on their opponent for such an offense is an embarrassment of a pool player.
It's the same thing with removing balls from the pockets before the last ball stops rolling.
It's a foul with no victim or offender.
As someone who is not playing for food, I have stopped my opponents from shooting the wrong ball in money matches and in tournaments.
I don't care what people think about that. I will not win a rack/match on a technicality like that.

To demand ball in hand for someone's arm hair or a thread on their shirt having rested upon, or grazed the top of a ball -without moving it, is beyond petty.
Those people should just buy trophies for themselves and not compete at all.
I promise to not fact-check their accomplishments.
If Hunter called a foul, I hope he goes two and out at every event from here.
If he just told him to make him aware and allowed Scott to continue (prior to the ref being aclled over and making the wrong call), I'll remain neutral.
Click to expand...
Just think

$1000 minimum penalty for his shirt touching!

I thought America has rules against 'cruel and unusual punishment ' maybe Matchroom and Hunter never got the memo .....

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
JolietJames said:
The rule itself is an embarrassment to pool and anyone who calls a foul on their opponent for such an offense is an embarrassment of a pool player.
It's the same thing with removing balls from the pockets before the last ball stops rolling.
It's a foul with no victim or offender.
As someone who is not playing for food, I have stopped my opponents from shooting the wrong ball in money matches and in tournaments.
I don't care what people think about that. I will not win a rack/match on a technicality like that.

To demand ball in hand for someone's arm hair or a thread on their shirt having rested upon, or grazed the top of a ball -without moving it, is beyond petty.
Those people should just buy trophies for themselves and not compete at all.
I promise to not fact-check their accomplishments.
If Hunter called a foul, I hope he goes two and out at every event from here.
If he just told him to make him aware, and allowed Scott to continue, (prior to the ref being called over and making the wrong call), I'll remain neutral.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps a good start before having the immediate kneejerk, emotional reaction, is to actually read the thread first. We have a forum member who played in the Open, and who was there at the match in question... Saw Scott foul, and reported EXACTLY how it went down. There's no "ifs" involved, unless you wish to call the forum member a liar.

Neither one of the two bolded things actually happened. 1. Hunter never called a foul, he just warned him that he was ACTIVELY TOUCHING the ball at the moment that Hunter warned him. Hunter did not attempt to take ball in hand. 2. Hunter did not call a ref over at all. Scott was doing his Scott thing and arguing the point and telling HUNTER to call a ref over, and this brought him to the attention of the ref, and hilarity ensued. If Scott was not being his usual combative self, he would NOT have been called for the foul by the ref, because the ref would never have known there was an issue.

If Scott had simply said "Okay", and not tried to be argumentative after actually already fouling the ball but BEING ALLOWED TO CONTINUE BY HUNTER, he would have continued his run, (and then likely bounced out in the next round). If it had been an (non-Filipino) Asian, or European player (other than Shaw or Denis Grabe), they likely would have said "okay", been a little bit more careful, and progressed in the tournament.

Scott is an aggressive, combative dude when he is playing folks off stream, and ESPECIALLY if he is playing an amateur he feels should not beat him. That combative attitude is what did him in, not Hunter.
 
FranCrimi said:
This is exactly why it's not right to lay it on the players to make those kinds of calls against each other. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. You need a ref if you're going to play all ball fouls, or play cue ball foul only.
Click to expand...
Common sense says making the call is a bad look!

Ref or no ref!

The issue is honor amongst pool players.

Either honor exist or it doesn't!

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top