Interesting discussion during the Pagulayan vs De Luna match at the American 14.1 championships

[alstl]

I tried to start each video at the correct time but if not then I also posted the time when each situation occurred.

at 3:36:55 Alex takes an intentional foul. De Luna appears to ask the referee to explain the rule.

At 4:05:58 Alex takes another intentional foul and De Luna again asks the referee for advice. That's when the discussion occurred between the commentators. One of the commentators thought the referee was coaching De Luna.

If I'm interpreting the rule correctly I think the referee acted appropriately as long has he was only explaining the rule and not giving advice. If De Luna was unaware Pagulayan was on 2 and the referee then coached him that would be inappropriate.


2.3 REFEREE’S RESPONSIVENESS
The referee shall be totally responsive to players’ inquiries regarding objective data, such as whether a ball will be in the rack, if a ball is in the kitchen, what the count is, how many points are needed for a victory, if a player or his opponent is on a foul, what rule would apply if a certain shot is made, etc. When asked for a clarification of a rule, the referee will explain the applicable rule to the best of his ability, but any misstatement by the referee will not protect a player from enforcement of the actual rules. The referee must not offer or provide any subjective opinion that would affect play, such as whether a good hit can be made on a prospective shot, whether a combination can be made, or how the table seems to be playing, etc.

I'm curious what Bob Jewett thinks of the situation.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I'm curious what Bob Jewett thinks of the situation.

It's not clear whether there is a referee on the table. If there is, he is supposed to announce that Alex is on two when he takes the second foul, and say it again when Alex approaches the table when on two. If Jeffrey asks about a specific rule, the official is supposed to answer the question. The referee is not supposed to offer rules unasked.

If there is an "area referee", he should not come forward and announce fouls. He should come to the table only when asked by the players. Or at least that is how I've seen "area referee" implemented.

As far as -15 for putting your hand in the pocket, that is not a rule. If you intentionally touch a ball in play, unsportsmanlike conduct comes in. The penalty is up to the official.

As far as the official stepping forward unasked, it might be useful for this tournament. When it comes to the rules for 14.1, some of the players are, ummm..., as stupid as stumps. How far off the rails should a game get before the officials try to put it back on track?

Maybe something was said about this at the players' meeting.

 

[alstl]

It's not clear whether there is a referee on the table. If there is, he is supposed to announce that Alex is on two when he takes the second foul, and say it again when Alex approaches the table when on two. If Jeffrey asks about a specific rule, the official is supposed to answer the question. The referee is not supposed to offer rules unasked.

If there is an "area referee", he should not come forward and announce fouls. He should come to the table only when asked by the players. Or at least that is how I've seen "area referee" implemented.

As far as -15 for putting your hand in the pocket, that is not a rule. If you intentionally touch a ball in play, unsportsmanlike conduct comes in. The penalty is up to the official.

As far as the official stepping forward unasked, it might be useful for this tournament. When it comes to the rules for 14.1, some of the players are, ummm..., as stupid as stumps. How far off the rails should a game get before the officials try to put it back on track?

Maybe something was said about this at the players' meeting.

Did you see this?

It doesn't appear to me Corey touched a ball. 58:15

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="

" title="LIVE NOW! 2022 American 14.1 Straight Pool Championships Day 3" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bob Jewett]

Did you see this?

It doesn't appear to me Corey touched a ball. 58:15

Yes, it appears to me that he did not touch a ball.

The time tag does not work. The shot is at the start of the rack where Corey leads Darren 102 to 82.

 

[7stud]

Yes, it appears to me that he did not touch a ball.

I think it's pretty clear on the replay that he did not hit a ball with his stick, but he came close enough that it was probably luck that he didn't hit the ball. Some people are saying that Cory double hit the cue ball, but a slow mo replay shows that didn't happen.

In the end, does it matter if Cory did not touch a ball when he hit his cue on the table? If you slam your stick next to a ball while the balls are still moving, should it be the same penalty as if you had hit the ball? Cory scratched so the shot was already a foul.

Then Darren slammed his stick on the table in response to the "-15 points for Cory, re-rack the balls, and Cory breaks" ruling.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think it's pretty clear on the replay that he did not hit a ball with his stick. Some people are saying that Cory double hit the cue ball. Can you tell? (No double hit. I played it back in slow mo.)

In the end, does it matter if Cory did not touch a ball when he hit his cue on the table? If you slam your stick next to a ball while the balls are still moving, should it be the same penalty as if you had hit the ball? Cory scratched so the shot was already a foul.

Then Darren slammed his stick on the table in response to the "-15 points for Cory, re-rack the balls, and Cory breaks" ruling.

Whacking the table needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Nothing or warning or standard foul or 15 point penalty or loss of match or ejection from tournament including loss of any prize money due. Case by case.

 

[alstl]

Whacking the table needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Nothing or warning or standard foul or 15 point penalty or loss of match or ejection from tournament including loss of any prize money due. Case by case.

Corey clearly didn't foul and in that case doesn't the referee have discretion? If touching a ball gets a re-rack then everybody would do it any time they miss a shot and leave an open table.

Poor ruling on several levels. Do you know that referee?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Corey clearly didn't foul and in that case doesn't the referee have discretion? If touching a ball gets a re-rack then everybody would do it any time they miss a shot and leave an open table....

At one time the rules were broken by someone trying to "fix" touched ball or stopped cue ball fouls, and they put in a mandatory rerack. They soon figured out that allowed a touch foul to save a completely open table. Then they made it optional. That was not the right fix. If someone intentionally touches a ball in play, they deserve to lose the game (assuming they were doing it to gain an advantage). If they do it by accident, it is usually just a standard foul. If they do it due to a brain freeze, that's a different issue. If they do it out of anger and frustration, that's a different case. If they do it because they thought they had ball in hand ....

 

[7stud]

At one time the rules were broken by someone trying to "fix" touched ball or stopped cue ball fouls, and they put in a mandatory rerack. They soon figured out that allowed a touch foul to save a completely open table. Then they made it optional. That was not the right fix. If someone intentionally touches a ball in play, they deserve to lose the game (assuming they were doing it to gain an advantage). If they do it by accident, it is usually just a standard foul. If they do it due to a brain freeze, that's a different issue. If they do it out of anger and frustration, that's a different case. If they do it because they thought they had ball in hand ....

Should there be something in the rules about the non-fouling opponent getting to choose an option, e.g.: 1) Whatever penalty the referee decides is appropriate, or 2) Continue with the way things lie.

In the end, Darren got another turn at the table, and he had a chance to win, but he missed a perfect break shot on the last rack he needed.

 

[tomatoshooter]

When it comes to the rules for 14.1, some of the players are, ummm..., as stupid as stumps.

There are some finer points of the rules that probably don't come up unless you play a lot of 14.1. It's not a real popular game currently so I can understand some ignorance on the subject.

 

[sparkle84]

If there is an "area referee", he should not come forward and announce fouls. He should come to the table only when asked by the players. Or at least that is how I've seen "area referee" implemented.

As far as -15 for putting your hand in the pocket, that is not a rule. If you intentionally touch a ball in play, unsportsmanlike conduct comes in. The penalty is up to the official.

As far as the official stepping forward unasked, it might be useful for this tournament. When it comes to the rules for 14.1, some of the players are, ummm..., as stupid as stumps. How far off the rails should a game get before the officials try to put it back on track?

Maybe something was said about this at the players' meeting.

It was stated by Karl in the players meeting that catching the CB as it's about to scratch would result in a 15 pt. penalty. It happened yesterday on the table adjacent to the stream table which he was refereeing. He saw it and rushed right over.
IMO he's a good referee but tends to get too involved in things which the players should handle on their own. More than a few players aren't too happy with him. The rerack in Appeltons match being the latest and the worst.

 

[alstl]

At one time the rules were broken by someone trying to "fix" touched ball or stopped cue ball fouls, and they put in a mandatory rerack. They soon figured out that allowed a touch foul to save a completely open table. Then they made it optional. That was not the right fix. If someone intentionally touches a ball in play, they deserve to lose the game (assuming they were doing it to gain an advantage). If they do it by accident, it is usually just a standard foul. If they do it due to a brain freeze, that's a different issue. If they do it out of anger and frustration, that's a different case. If they do it because they thought they had ball in hand ....

Interesting. After seeing the Appleton situation I'd like to know exactly what the referee said to De Luna.

 

[Chip Roberson]

After looking back through that vid about five times,,Cory didn't touch the ball with his cue, no where near it. As for wacking the table with his cue, all I saw, when he had seen the cue ball take a drink he lowered the end of his cue and the tip made contact with the table. I guess
Baseball is not the only place you can find idiot Umpires .

 

[DynoDan]

It was stated by Karl in the players meeting that catching the CB as it's about to scratch would result in a 15 pt. penalty. It happened yesterday on the table adjacent to the stream table which he was refereeing. He saw it and rushed right over.
IMO he's a good referee but tends to get too involved in things which the players should handle on their own. More than a few players aren't too happy with him. The rerack in Appeltons match being the latest and the worst.

I wondered what was going to happen when Garcia (?) caught the CB in the pocket and bounced it back on the table Thurs. I heard the ref mention a 15 point penalty to him, and was waiting to see if a re-rack was imminent. Was he only being warned, or actually penalized?