Hunter v Frost, your stance?

[The_JV]

Again so informing someone they are fouling in the middle of running out the case game is not calling a foul? Yeah ok pal.

Wow... you're one of those special ones aren't you. No not calling a foul, isn't calling a foul. For future reference a circle isn't a square as well.

If you aren’t calling the foul then shut up while your opponent is shooting!

Oddly enough you do have somewhat of a point here. However, even if the sitting player ops not to gain an advantage by calling a foul. They still should be able to reserve the right for the table play as it was without inadvertent alteration by the shooting player.

And it’s laughable to say Scott could get better position on said ball frozen to the rail by a shirt graze. Please explain the physics on that seeing you’re so smart.

Who said it was frozen...? Didn't look frozen to me. Actually it was maybe an inch or so off the rail. Of course don't let a first hand eye witness report derail your narrative...lol.

If you don't understand how an object in motion can effect the position of another object, then I really can't be bothered, and I'm incredibly curious if you play pool. The physics of this is the root basis of the game...lol. Scott's shot to reach the 6 wasn't easy, and having the ball further off the rail would have made it easier. Not sure why you're struggling with this one.

You are right about one thing though Hunter was trying not to look like a nit by giving him a “heads up” that turned into a foul being called. If he never interrupts Scott the foul never occurs.

...and trees laying on the ground never made a noise getting there if someone didn't witness it...lol

I believe that was his intention all along but that is my opinion not fact like y’all claim! And just because you were there that doesn’t mean you know his intentions better then someone who was not. Human nature is human nature.

You got at least half of the above right. You're opinion is what you believe. Good on ya. Doesn't make it reality though.

...You're also right that I don't know what his intentions were. It could be that his real intention was indeed to get a foul called on Scott. However rather than looking like a nit to the small minority on AZB (because that's what pros worry about), he opted just to inform Scott that he was touching the ball in hopes that the crowd would pick up their torches, incite Scott into an argument, which would draw over the ref who would then reference little known rules and get the foul in a back door manner. Pretty darn clever of Hunter... You're a regular Sherlock Holmes. Of course Sherlock generally adhered to the notion that the simplest solution was generally the answer. Lets not let that logic cloud the complex reality of Hunter's nitty genius.

If it were me and I didn't want to call a foul in that situation I would stay quiet. If I wanted to call a foul and not sound like a nit I would tell the guy he was fouling in the middle of his shot but then let him know I was not calling a foul. Then I'd be sharking him. Get it?

Yep... courtesy = sharking. nicksaint logic = justnum

FYI, Scott was nowhere near the point of shooting the 6. He was trying to determine if he could even reach the shot adequately. Again though... here's that pesky first hand knowledge getting in the way of what you want to believe...lol

Feel free to continue. I'm not going to, and congrats on being #4

 

[nataddrho]

People who don't know Hunter and don't like him are in the same crowd that peaked in high school.

The same people, whom if they didn't know better, would make fun of Efren for being an old man playing in tournaments... until someone informs them that he is a legend. Then they would quickly change their perspective to align with the popular group think.

 

[pvc lou]

Wow... you're one of those special ones aren't you. No not calling a foul, isn't calling a foul. For future reference a circle isn't a square as well.

Oddly enough you do have somewhat of a point here. However, even if the sitting player ops not to gain an advantage by calling a foul. They still should be able to reserve the right for the table play as it was without inadvertent alteration by the shooting player.

Who said it was frozen...? Didn't look frozen to me. Actually it was maybe an inch or so off the rail. Of course don't let a first hand eye witness report derail your narrative...lol.

If you don't understand how an object in motion can effect the position of another object, then I really can't be bothered, and I'm incredibly curious if you play pool. The physics of this is the root basis of the game...lol. Scott's shot to reach the 6 wasn't easy, and having the ball further off the rail would have made it easier. Not sure why you're struggling with this one.

...and trees laying on the ground never made a noise getting there if someone didn't witness it...lol

You got at least half of the above right. You're opinion is what you believe. Good on ya. Doesn't make it reality though.

...You're also right that I don't know what his intentions were. It could be that his real intention was indeed to get a foul called on Scott. However rather than looking like a nit to the small minority on AZB (because that's what pros worry about), he opted just to inform Scott that he was touching the ball in hopes that the crowd would pick up their torches, incite Scott into an argument, which would draw over the ref who would then reference little known rules and get the foul in a back door manner. Pretty darn clever of Hunter... You're a regular Sherlock Holmes. Of course Sherlock generally adhered to the notion that the simplest solution was generally the answer. Lets not let that logic cloud the complex reality of Hunter's nitty genius.

Yep... courtesy = sharking. nicksaint logic = justnum

FYI, Scott was nowhere near the point of shooting the 6. He was trying to determine if he could even reach the shot adequately. Again though... here's that pesky first hand knowledge getting in the way of what you want to believe...lol

Feel free to continue. I'm not going to, and congrats on being #4

Hangry? Why wait? Grab a snickers

 

[nicksaint26]

Wow... you're one of those special ones aren't you. No not calling a foul, isn't calling a foul. For future reference a circle isn't a square as well.

Oddly enough you do have somewhat of a point here. However, even if the sitting player ops not to gain an advantage by calling a foul. They still should be able to reserve the right for the table play as it was without inadvertent alteration by the shooting player.

Who said it was frozen...? Didn't look frozen to me. Actually it was maybe an inch or so off the rail. Of course don't let a first hand eye witness report derail your narrative...lol.

If you don't understand how an object in motion can effect the position of another object, then I really can't be bothered, and I'm incredibly curious if you play pool. The physics of this is the root basis of the game...lol. Scott's shot to reach the 6 wasn't easy, and having the ball further off the rail would have made it easier. Not sure why you're struggling with this one.

...and trees laying on the ground never made a noise getting there if someone didn't witness it...lol

You got at least half of the above right. You're opinion is what you believe. Good on ya. Doesn't make it reality though.

...You're also right that I don't know what his intentions were. It could be that his real intention was indeed to get a foul called on Scott. However rather than looking like a nit to the small minority on AZB (because that's what pros worry about), he opted just to inform Scott that he was touching the ball in hopes that the crowd would pick up their torches, incite Scott into an argument, which would draw over the ref who would then reference little known rules and get the foul in a back door manner. Pretty darn clever of Hunter... You're a regular Sherlock Holmes. Of course Sherlock generally adhered to the notion that the simplest solution was generally the answer. Lets not let that logic cloud the complex reality of Hunter's nitty genius.

Yep... courtesy = sharking. nicksaint logic = justnum

FYI, Scott was nowhere near the point of shooting the 6. He was trying to determine if he could even reach the shot adequately. Again though... here's that pesky first hand knowledge getting in the way of what you want to believe...lol

Feel free to continue. I'm not going to, and congrats on being #4

You are the one stating his shirt could move a ball on the table. Who said anything about a ball in motion? Man you are reaching . A shirt grazing a ball can’t move a ball at rest. And telling someone they fouled during the middle of their shot is in fact calling a foul so we can agree to disagree there. You say tomato I say “tomato”.

I already know the type of player you are, a NIT

 

[SBC]

And still people forget.....Matchroom admitted their ref made a bad call. The unwitnessed shirt foul goes to the shooter. No foul....good day sir.

 

[The_JV]

And still people forget.....Matchroom admitted their ref made a bad call. The unwitnessed shirt foul goes to the shooter. No foul....good day sir.

Find that snippet of video... you won't because it didn't happen.

Emily stated there's conflicting rules that need to be aligned. Not that the ref made a bad call. The ref followed the WPA rules to the letter.

99% of the time I'm a firm believer in the "call for the shooter" mentality. However that's meant to settle disagreements in opinion. In this case, Scott couldn't have a viable opinion because there was no physical way he could have have seen the area in which the foul occurred. That was the argument of the ref, and why they entertained the whole "sitting player is a ref" and "spectators can be involved" rules. Again these are WPA rules. Why does MR and the ref get a bad rap for following the rule set of the WPA..?

Some have told me in this very thread that I couldn't have possibly seen the foul which I have stated I have. Ok fine.... If that's the case then you need to concede that Scott couldn't have possibly seen it as well. I had a better view point then he did. So, if I can't have a viable opinion, then Scott can't... Who does that leave...? I guess Hunter and the spectators that were closer. Hunter said nothing to the ref until he was asked. The spectators flapped their gums endlessly. The ref and by extension MR are victims of poorly managed rules and circumstance. Hunter is a victim of the small group of haters. Scott IMO, is a victim of the fans that should have kept their mouths shut.

 

[SBC]

Find that snippet of video... you won't because it didn't happen.

Emily stated there's conflicting rules that need to be aligned. Not that the ref made a bad call. The ref followed the WPA rules to the letter.

99% of the time I'm a firm believer in the "call for the shooter" mentality. However that's meant to settle disagreements in opinion. In this case, Scott couldn't have a viable opinion because there was no physical way he could have have seen the area in which the foul occurred. That was the argument of the ref, and why they entertained the whole "sitting player is a ref" and "spectators can be involved" rules. Again these are WPA rules. Why does MR and the ref get a bad rap for following the rule set of the WPA..?

Some have told me in this very thread that I couldn't have possibly seen the foul which I have stated I have. Ok fine.... If that's the case then you need to concede that Scott couldn't have possibly seen it as well. I had a better view point then he did. So, if I can't have a viable opinion, then Scott can't... Who does that leave...? I guess Hunter and the spectators that were closer. Hunter said nothing to the ref until he was asked. The spectators flapped their gums endlessly. The ref and by extension MR are victims of poorly managed rules and circumstance. Hunter is a victim of the small group of haters. Scott IMO, is a victim of the fans that should have kept their mouths shut.

Posted on their FB....but you keep on believing what you saw. It's irrelevant. Because the call goes to the shooter when a ref isn't witness.

 

[ShootingArts]

While people are calling this a shirt foul it looked a whole lot more like a stomach foul. While Scott couldn't see he could certainly feel. When he first came down on the shot and bounced back up it looked very much like his stomach itself, through the shirt, came in contact with the ball. I don't think there are any of us that haven't seen a shirt move a ball but in this case the question becomes can a stomach move a ball?

The ball weighs about six ounces, that particular stomach looks to weigh 20-30 pounds. Pretty sure the physics boys can work out the question of movement!

Hu

 

[pt109]

Stuff like this…
View attachment 723847

View attachment 723848

Couple things…..the score was 7-8….Scott 7
I‘ve been in that spot playing snooker…I brought it to my opponent’s attention because I felt that a bridge was needed to hit it legally.
This guy Nevins is out of line.
This is a pro tournament…all fouls….APA type rulings do not apply…I think it was handled as well as could be.

 

[ShootingArts]

Buffalo mentions Racketeers, a huge barn of a place near where Metairie/New Orleans met near the river and the biggest pool hall I have ever seen. In one room they had what some say was several hundred tables. I don't know, but looking the place over one of the few times I went in there it looked to be several acres of tables! It seemed almost forgotten for some reason but was interesting. One feature which didn't interest me, they kicked off a pool tournament for a trophy every hour if they had I think six players. If you had a chrome fetish, they could take care of it. I would have liked to have seen that place hopping with a big event going on.

Hu

 

[jtompilot]

Stuff like this…
View attachment 723847

View attachment 723848

Exactly, and James Leone has since recanted this statement. Don't know about the other person but Hunter has never even met that person.

Buffalo was just joking about barring Hunter, unfortunately most people didn’t know he was joking.

 

[MattPoland]

Buffalo was just joking about barring Hunter, unfortunately most people didn’t know he was joking.

You know how it is. A post like that gets all the numpties emotionally riled up. You can bet some creepers decided it made sense to send hate mail in his DMs.

 

[The_JV]

Posted on their FB....<snip>...

Post it here... you can't, because once again it doesn't exist. You've claimed several things in this thread as fact but have not backed up a single one when requested. I suspect this will be no different. The effort to do so I mean, because I know you won't find anything to back up that claim.

...</snip>but you keep on believing what you saw. It's irrelevant. Because the call goes to the shooter when a ref isn't witness.

For the record, again, Scott fouled. For everyone there (excluding ref) this is fact. Regardless of what all of us saw. IMO the only people with any right to say anything about the foul was either Scott or Hunter. The spectators should have respected both players on this and let them determine how to proceed. So yes I agree with you. A spectator's opinion should have zero bearing on the assessment of a foul. Unfortunately that's not how the rules have been drawn up. You and I don't agree with them, but that's also irrelevant.

According to the WPA rules of 9 ball. A foul un-witnesses by a ref doesn't necessarily go in favour to the shooter. If you need an example of such circumstances. Please refer to this thread and the WPA rules of 9 ball.

 

[The_JV]

While people are calling this a shirt foul it looked a whole lot more like a stomach foul. While Scott couldn't see he could certainly feel. When he first came down on the shot and bounced back up it looked very much like his stomach itself, through the shirt, came in contact with the ball. I don't think there are any of us that haven't seen a shirt move a ball but in this case the question becomes can a stomach move a ball?

The ball weighs about six ounces, that particular stomach looks to weigh 20-30 pounds. Pretty sure the physics boys can work out the question of movement!

Hu

I agree, but since you had some fun with me splitting hairs earlier.... Does a "stomach foul" count once the initial shirt foul has been committed but not called..? I mean the shirt foul must happen prior to a stomach one, and if we can't prove Scott touched the ball with his shirt then does it matter if he did feel the 6..?

Tongue removed from cheek... We have all seen players reset in that manner when it dawns on them that they may be close to fouling. ...and I've said it already but Scott at this point was still trying to determine if he could reach the shot adequately at this point. No where near pulling the trigger.

I'll also give Scott far more professional credit. Deserved or not, I don't know. However I would never assume that he did feel the contact with his stomach and then not call the foul on himself. The only way I'd accept that is if Scott took ownership on his own accord. I know there's a host of backroom pool purists taking part in this thread that will say that if he did touch it hard enough to feel it, and Hunter didn't say anything then it's Hunter's fault, and Scott shouldn't be obligated to call it on himself. The definition of "sportsmanship" and "professionalism" on this forum varies on the poster's narrative, but I'll always remain steadfast that players should always take ownership regardless of the presence of a ref.

***Warning: Personal Opinion Not Based on Fact Below
Although I could not determine that the 6 ball's position was altered at all when Scott's shirt touched the ball. If left unchecked the likely hood of Scott's position altering that location was high. I believe that's why Scott did what players do by resetting, and also why Hunter only warned Scott and didn't care to collect the foul he was entitled to.

 

[ShootingArts]

I agree, but since you had some fun with me splitting hairs earlier.... Does a "stomach foul" count once the initial shirt foul has been committed but not called..? I mean the shirt foul must happen prior to a stomach one, and if we can't prove Scott touched the ball with his shirt then does it matter if he did feel the 6..?

Tongue removed from cheek... We have all seen players reset in that manner when it dawns on them that they may be close to fouling. ...and I've said it already but Scott at this point was still trying to determine if he could reach is adequately at this point. No where near pulling the trigger.

I'll also give Scott far more professional credit. Deserved or not, I don't know. However I would never assume that he did feel the contact with his stomach and then not call the foul on himself. The only way I'd accept that is if Scott took ownership on his own accord. I know there's a host of backroom pool purists taking part in this thread that will say that if he did touch it hard enough to feel it, and Hunter didn't say anything then it's Hunter's fault, and Scott shouldn't be obligated to call it on himself. The definition of "sportsmanship" and "professionalism" on this forum varies on the poster's narrative, but I'll always remain steadfast that players should always take ownership regardless of the presence of a ref.

***Warning: Personal Opinion Not Based on Fact Below
Although I could not determine that the 6 ball's position was altered at all when Scott's shirt touched the ball. If left unchecked the likely hood of Scott's position altering that location was high. I believe that's why Scott did what players do by resetting, and also why Hunter only warned Scott and didn't care to collect the foul he was entitled to.

I was judging by Scott's body language when he came off of the shot the first time and his past history of doing a lot of gambling. No question that the rules are often looser gambling than in formal large tournaments. However, I have made it plan that I was just speculating, only Scott knows if he felt the ball and he would be a moron to admit it if he did after not calling it immediately!

I enjoy the back and forth with someone like you. The guys that think every discussion is life or death get old after awhile! You had one of the best views in the house. I'd say your opinion is as good as any except Scott's and better than most! Despite the ref's assertions, I don't think anyone knows better than Scott if he fouled or not. Then there is the question of would he admit to it. Years ago, almost certainly not. Today I don't know. Like all of us, Scott has matured a lot since he was a player I didn't have much use for as a person. Gotten older anyway. Some folks just get older. Scott seems to have matured. Overall, I think he handled himself well in the incident.

Hu

 

[23DenaliBDE]

If only the rules were written down somewhere....... What's more amazing is some of the same people that would throw a fit about bar rules, can't figure out that complaining about an actual foul is the exact same thing.

 

[SBC]

Post it here... you can't, because once again it doesn't exist. You've claimed several things in this thread as fact but have not backed up a single one when requested. I suspect this will be no different. The effort to do so I mean, because I know you won't find anything to back up that claim.

For the record, again, Scott fouled. For everyone there (excluding ref) this is fact. Regardless of what all of us saw. IMO the only people with any right to say anything about the foul was either Scott or Hunter. The spectators should have respected both players on this and let them determine how to proceed. So yes I agree with you. A spectator's opinion should have zero bearing on the assessment of a foul. Unfortunately that's not how the rules have been drawn up. You and I don't agree with them, but that's also irrelevant.

According to the WPA rules of 9 ball. A foul un-witnesses by a ref doesn't necessarily go in favour to the shooter. If you need an example of such circumstances. Please refer to this thread and the WPA rules of 9 ball.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Bob Jewett]

If only the rules were written down somewhere....... What's more amazing is some of the same people that would throw a fit about bar rules, can't figure out that complaining about an actual foul is the exact same thing.

I looked around and by George, someone has written them down. They must have just shown up since no one seems to have read them yet.

Rules

Navigate the rules and regulations of pool with ease. Stay informed and play fair with WPA Rules!

wpapool.com

(Although the WPA and Matchroom are in the middle of a kerfuffle, MR is still using the WPA rules.)

 

[maha]

one thing for me is, that no spectator should have any influence in the call of the ref. , as all spectators are biased for one or the other players.

and is it a foul if you touch a ball or if you move a ball.
how is it possible to call a foul on a ball you didnt see move. doesnt a foul have to be visible on a ball.

 

[nicksaint26]

one thing for me is, that no spectator should have any influence in the call of the ref. , as all spectators are biased for one or the other players.

and is it a foul if you touch a ball or if you move a ball.
how is it possible to call a foul on a ball you didnt see move. doesnt a foul have to be visible on a ball.

Every action has a reaction! This is elementary school stuff. While the crowd getting involved was wrong it was a direct result of Hunter interrupting Scott during his turn at the table. If Hunter never intends on calling a foul and he stays quiet in his chair, which he is supposed to do if he is not calling a foul, then none of this happens. It’s really that simple!

I think Scott fouled but I also don’t feel bad for Hunter getting the backlash he did for winning like that. I would not have said a peep unless I was actually calling a foul and I believe many other people feel the same way. “In my opinion” all this was a direct result of Hunter letting Scott know he fouled while it was SCOTT’S turn at the table. Did he know the crowd would get involved? Maybe not but they would have never got involved if he hadn’t opened his mouth when he had no intention of calling a foul. He is the one that opened that door and that is why he is dealing with the consequences of being called a nit for calling a shirt foul to win.

The JV can compare me to Justnum all he wants that says more about him and his intelligence than it does mine. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room when in all actuality he is just another pool playing nit that thinks a ball can be moved by a shirt graze and he will call you on it. I believe his words were an object in motion (shirt) can cause another object (pool ball) to move lol. That was some physics lesson JV! Where is your degree from? You should NEVER be interrupting another player while it’s their turn at the table unless you are calling a foul. Guess this is Varsity stuff JV.