Impact of call shot on US Open 10 ball

[Bayawak]

Exactly what I was getting at. Shane played much better than Lee Van. Broke the balls like his usual self and Lee Van missed 4 or 5 EASY balls that should have costed him at least a game each. A couple of those he got a lucky safe and was able to win the game. I felt for Shane, I feel like he plays 10-ball at a different level then the rest.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to disagree. This is all water under the bridge. The fact of the matter is, Van van beat Shane, fair and square, no ifs and or buts. And all of those what ifs, could haves, would not change anything. Those are the rules of the tour and they accepted it so it's none of your business whether you like it or not. They agreed to play under those rules.

Now if you really think that Shane shoots better than Van van, then why don't you set up a money match between the two of them in the The Action Report, like Daz and Bartram. I'm sure that Shane's followers like you wouldn't mind, right? After all, you are still smarting from Shane's loss to Van van..

 

[jay helfert]

The fact that a particular type of slop shot is of low frequency does not argue in favor of allowing it.

As I've said in other threads, if slopping in balls happened every second shot, then things would pretty much even out, even in the short space of one match or one tournament. But slop is fairly rare among the pros. So when it does happen it can be intensely critical to the outcome of the match. Suppose they had been counting 10-on-the-break yesterday as a win. And suppose the only one of the day came with the score tied 12-12 in the finals. Is that how you want an event to end? I don't. The fact that an audience "erupts" is not a good reason. Audiences often "erupt" in sports out of ignorance rather than for truly skilled actions. Audiences sit on their hands when someone makes a remarkable multi-rail kick through extreme traffic but they "erupt" when someone makes the game ball on the break.

And your statement that no one complained for a zillion years about the 9 on the break isn't quite right. Grady has been advocating no-slop rules for decades.

I'm going to let you have the last word. I see no point in continuing this debate. :thumbup:

 

[jay helfert]

Hard to disagree with Jay but you do a pretty good job of it

I bet at some point some other major names have complained. To hear Earl, just making the wingball on the break is a crime against humanity. There's no way he's in favor of golden breaks. It's worth pointing out that not only do some major "household names" complain about slop, about 5385129489184918 unknown 9ballers have bìtched and moaned about their opponent puts in a 9 on the break. That has to count for something.

I'm glad I'm coming up in a pool generation that offers perfect racks that prevent it.

I don't mind anyone saying "well if it makes the crowd erupt and pool is more popular as a result, let's keep it." ...we just should be honest about that, and admit keeping golden breaks is more about entertainment than keeping the game fair.

I think we should also take the net cords out of tennis and the lucky bounces out of golf. I see too many matches and games spoiled by someone getting lucky. It's just not fair! :angry:

 

[Black-Balled]

...if you really think that Shane shoots better than Van van, then why don't you set up a money match between the two of them in the The Action Report, ... I'm sure that Shane's followers like you wouldn't mind, right? After all, you are still smarting from Shane's loss to Van van..

Please tell me Shane is not ducking Van Van?!!?

 

[Black-Balled]

The rules played by at the SBE were ridiculous. The notion that if you miss a shot that was legally executed and then the incoming player can just hand it back to you and sit back down, is just plain dumb. ...

That is even dumber than pushout!

 

[jay helfert]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement that there should be no call shot and safety in 10 ball, yet every pro that has commentated on the streams I watched was FOR having call shot and safety. If I'm playing for $50 a rack, I sure as heck don't want to lose because someone missed a shot and left me hooked behind one of 2 balls left on the table.

Just to add a story, played a guy 10-ball per game, he was never up the whole night, and I was up 4-5 at various points. We ended up even because the place closed. Next day or 2, we play 9-ball, he is up 7 games on me due to just hitting the balls hard, re-arranging the table and leaving me behind balls when he missed. At even our non-pro level, this random crap needs to end. I've seen a guy miss 8 balls 2 games in a row, have them drop into some other pocket and win the set. Where is the skill in that? Might as well shoot dice.

You know, when I was playing Rotation over in the PI a couple of months ago, I started out losing. I had to lay in bed at night and think about my strategy. The first thing I figured out was that the first nine balls are worth far less than the last six (45 points vs. 65 points). Often it does no good to make several low numbered balls if you give up a shot to your opponent on the high numbered balls.

My new strategy was when I had no good shot on one of the low balls, I would try to ride as many balls (preferably high ones) as possible. In other words I would shoot the one ball (or two or three or four) into a cluster of balls and try to get lucky. I'd hit it hard to get as much action as possible. Guess what, I started winning against even some of the better players. I had found a successful strategy for beating the "shortstop" level players. Making a high numbered ball(s) early in the rack gave me a big advantage.

Was I lucky? Yes. Was it smart pool? Yes again.

 

[Bayawak]

Please tell me Shane is not ducking Van Van?!!?

Well, I would not really go that far!!:thumbup::thumbup:

 

[David_Smith]

Sorry, but I'm missing your point. I'm advocating "no-slop" rules of some sort. The WPA 10-ball rules are one such set of rules. Making the 10 on the break is one type of slop shot, and is not counted as a win under WPA 10-ball rules.

Even if the racks were "tapped," it's possible for the 10-ball to be made on the break.

The break is not call shot. You don't have to call a ball on the break and you get to keep shooting if you make a ball even if it is the ten ball. So the shot that is maybe the most important in the game allows luck.

I'm looking for examples of the call shot rules affecting play either positively or negatively during this tournament.

 

[jamesroberts]

i dont see the advantage for call shot, I like the sbe rules much better. I feel i lost both matches I played because my opponent missed and got a lucky safe here and there

 

[Celtic]

All in all I wouldn't say it plays a huge part in the game. Even the SVB example he was aware he was going to be pushing the 7 toward the pocket so really wasn't like he just slopped it in. I don't know, before the tourney I was all for call 10-ball but now I almost feel like at that level it almost just doesn't matter.

Kind of curious to say SVB would have won the tournament without the rule and then in the same breath say at that level it does not matter...

Personally I liked the rule alot, it took alot of luck out of the game.

I think Earl was dead on as well with his added rule that when playing a offensive shot and missing the incomming player should have the option of making the person shoot again. This way if you try to make a shot, miss, and get a lucky safety you do not get rewarded for it. If you wish to play a safety you call a safety and now cannot play the two way safe/offensive shot.

This rule addition would remove alot of the calling of balls on kicks that Billy I was talking about "why not call it, you should always call something on a kick". Instead alot of the time now people would call safe on a kick shot, which is normally what they were playing and they called the ball and pocket simply as a "just incase" which IMO this game does not need.

I would very much like to see the accidental safeties from offensive shots by having players be forced to shoot again when they play an offensive shot, miss, and get a hook. Earl has a really good point on this and should be listened too.

 

[Celtic]

Under WPA rules the incoming player has the option to give it back ONLY if a ball goes down that wasn't called (i.e. the called ball goes in the wrong pocket or an uncalled ball drops). On a simple miss if nothing goes down, the incoming player must take the balls in position. Under the rules at the SBE, the incoming player has the option on ANY miss, whether a ball falls or not, unless a safety is called.

LVC had a situation were he was playing a safety and trying to hook his opponent (Po) and did so, but the ball he struck banked into the corner pocket. Po gave him back the table so LVC essentially hooked himself.

I'm not sure I like the rule where the player calls a safety and may have to come back to the table and face the hook he set up for his opponent.

I agree, I did not know that you could call a safety, make an uncalled ball, and be forced to shoot again. I know why they did this, it is to stop the "safety" when shooting in an easy shot that will result in a hook for the incomming player. If you fall offline on an out you simply make the ball while playing horrible shape and calling safe, and now your opponent has to deal with the mess of your bad shape play.

This is one tricky aspect to deal with. This is why Lee Van ended up having to shoot again, it is a tricky thing to think up a good workable alternative.

 

[Celtic]

The notion that if you miss a shot that was legally executed and then the incoming player can just hand it back to you and sit back down, is just plain dumb.

Why? You call to make a ball in a specific pocket, you miss, which means all you effectively managed to do was make the cueball legally contact the object ball, a very simple thing in most regards baring jump shots, kicking, and masse. And the incomming player now might be forced to kick at a ball with little chance of success because you missed that fairly easy shot down the rail and got lucky that the ball horned out and went behind a cluster of balls?

If on that legally executed shot you called "safe" then you are good to go, the incomming player MUST shoot. But if you were "not" playing safe and instead attempting an offensive shot and simply failed to perform then how is it that you are warranted in having that awesome outcome and having the incomming player in a tough spot after your own failure to perform your last shot?

 

[AtLarge]

The break is not call shot. You don't have to call a ball on the break and you get to keep shooting if you make a ball even if it is the ten ball. So the shot that is maybe the most important in the game allows luck.

I'm looking for examples of the call shot rules affecting play either positively or negatively during this tournament.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the breaker gets to continue shooting by making a ball (sometimes one he played to make, sometimes one he didn't directly play). Under WPA 10-ball rules, however, he doesn't win the game with one thrust of the cue stick that happens to slop in the 10-ball. So, yes, the break shot does allow luck, and I'm not speaking currently of changing that (although there is a neat way to do that). But we can easily eliminate a pernicious form of luck by outlawing a win on the break.

As to your question about examples from the tournament, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Sorry, I wasn't taking notes, and I watched so many matches over the last few days that they now are kind of blurring together. But, yes, I did see some slopped-in balls, including a Bustamente (I think) 10-ball on the break, that would have counted under "slop-is-OK" rules.​

Another highly significant example is the one mentioned in post #2. You could view what happened there as "fair" or not, but the rules clearly had a major effect on the outcome. Shane could have called the 7-ball, or he could have played safe. Instead he tried a moderately difficult bank on the 6-ball and missed. Without call-shot rules, he would have continued shooting and probably would have won the match.

 

[JarnoV]

One thing about the call-shot rule as played in the US Open 10-Ball tournament: how often did you see a player genuinely try to pocket a ball and making it to another pocket? That's what the call-shot rule is trying to prevent, right? It seems to me that this is pretty rare in the pro level play anyhow. If they miss the shot, the object ball is often near the pocket they were aiming to and if not, it rarely flukes into another pocket.

(Call-shot as played in 10-ball also prevents two-way shots, but that doesn't reduce the luck significantly if at all in pro tournaments.)

It's much more common, especially in 10-ball, to miss a called ball unintentionally and leave the opponent snookered. (Yeah, sometimes players intentionally leave the cue ball in such position that they will be on the next ball but probably safe if they miss the called shot.)

 

[pacain]

i feel this rule will harm anybody under those 15 co-favorites jay has referred to. you will almost certainly see more safety play. somehow i don't think that would be real appealing to matches televised . more of the "now we skip to the 7th rack" announcements. it's too bad that more concern is not given as to what would make billiards more tv friendly, rather than what promoters want. and who gives a damn what earl wants ? maybe he can have a meltdown, do a little cursing and show his ass during a televised event to further his pool image. until more of the rules being enacted address televsion wants to some degree, overseas will be where the majority of matches will be offered for mainstream television and pay-per-view

 

[CJ Wiley]

CJ's Response to Rule Changes

What effects did you observe from call shot rules during this tournament?

When I was running the PCA (The Pro CueSports Association) I still think we had the best rules to date....the difference was every shot was called (which brings credibility to the game...in basketball, golf,football, etc. there's ONLY ONE TARGET to score), and if your opponent missed you could make them shoot again (there's a lot of luck in people missing and hooking you) BUT one time a game you could call a pocket and a safe so that you could do a "two way" shot.....comes up when you have a tough bank or shot and you're playing safe too. In this case if you missed your opponent COULD NOT make you shoot again....THESE, IN MY OPINION ARE THE BEST RULES cjwiley .c*m

 

[dedstroke38]

Kind of curious to say SVB would have won the tournament without the rule and then in the same breath say at that level it does not matter...

Personally I liked the rule alot, it took alot of luck out of the game.

I think Earl was dead on as well with his added rule that when playing a offensive shot and missing the incomming player should have the option of making the person shoot again. This way if you try to make a shot, miss, and get a lucky safety you do not get rewarded for it. If you wish to play a safety you call a safety and now cannot play the two way safe/offensive shot.

This rule addition would remove alot of the calling of balls on kicks that Billy I was talking about "why not call it, you should always call something on a kick". Instead alot of the time now people would call safe on a kick shot, which is normally what they were playing and they called the ball and pocket simply as a "just incase" which IMO this game does not need.

I would very much like to see the accidental safeties from offensive shots by having players be forced to shoot again when they play an offensive shot, miss, and get a hook. Earl has a really good point on this and should be listened too.

It is exactly my point. The fact that its INTENTIONS were to take luck out of the game and to effectively reward the better playing player but it didn't do that. I'm saying while it makes very little difference in the game play POSITEVELY, there were a few more occasions where it actually cheapened the game for me and didn't reward a 2 way shot for instance. Yes, I agree that with the average players it can make a big difference in reducing luck and ultimately rewarding the better player, but at this level it causes more harm then good.

 

[dedstroke38]

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to disagree. This is all water under the bridge. The fact of the matter is, Van van beat Shane, fair and square, no ifs and or buts. And all of those what ifs, could haves, would not change anything. Those are the rules of the tour and they accepted it so it's none of your business whether you like it or not. They agreed to play under those rules.

Now if you really think that Shane shoots better than Van van, then why don't you set up a money match between the two of them in the The Action Report, like Daz and Bartram. I'm sure that Shane's followers like you wouldn't mind, right? After all, you are still smarting from Shane's loss to Van van..

Yes, I completely agree and I'm not angry about the loss or anything, just because I felt like Shane SHOULD have won doesn't mean I have anything up my a$$. I'm actually very happy for Lee Van for winning the whole thing

If I wasn't a poor college student and if I had their cell phone numbers I would get right on that :grin:

These Fargo ratings that were compiled are pretty interesting though.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=138279&d=1274667047

 

[AtLarge]

When I was running the PCA (The Pro CueSports Association) I still think we had the best rules to date....the difference was every shot was called (which brings credibility to the game...in basketball, golf,football, etc. there's ONLY ONE TARGET to score), and if your opponent missed you could make them shoot again (there's a lot of luck in people missing and hooking you) BUT one time a game you could call a pocket and a safe so that you could do a "two way" shot.....comes up when you have a tough bank or shot and you're playing safe too. In this case if you missed your opponent COULD NOT make you shoot again....THESE, IN MY OPINION ARE THE BEST RULES cjwiley .c*m

Thanks for chiming in, CJ. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) about that "two-way" allowance under the PCA rules. That's an interesting fillip to the rules.

And I'm glad to hear that you favor call-shot pool.

 

[Celtic]

It is exactly my point. The fact that its INTENTIONS were to take luck out of the game and to effectively reward the better playing player but it didn't do that. I'm saying while it makes very little difference in the game play POSITEVELY, there were a few more occasions where it actually cheapened the game for me and didn't reward a 2 way shot for instance. Yes, I agree that with the average players it can make a big difference in reducing luck and ultimately rewarding the better player, but at this level it causes more harm then good.

Not sure I agree. I saw full well how gigantic that pocket was with the 8-ball there for the 7 in the corner, and SVB chose to call the 6-ball, which he missed in the match and then missed twice more after the match was over. He chose the wrong ball to shoot to make, missed it, and lost the match. Had he called the 7-ball and played it he would have been the one with that 6-ball shot after making the 7 and would have won the set. How is it better that SVB shoots at a 6-ball he was trying to make in the side, makes the plan-B shot of the 7-ball while missing the called ball, and should keep shooting. He had to call only 1 ball, he was ok if he makes both, he missed the ball he called in and made a ball he did not. That is a miss, he does not shoot any longer and lost the match because of it.

Cripe in 8-ball you cannot 2-way a shot with 2 different balls like that, you call one or the other and if you make both or the one you call you keep shooting. It is not a two way shot to try to make 2 different balls called and make either one and keep shooting. Called ball is called ball, you call a single ball in a single pocket and you make it or you don't, SVB missed his called shot.