Sorry if this offends anyone, but just have to share my $0.02 from my experience of being there for every single day of the tournament.
It almost seemed that the benefit of having professional matches refereed was totally eliminated by the tactics and behavior of the referees themselves. That's a shame. Refs are suppose to improve the game/sport and conditions - not make them worse. I was so glad to learn that they'll have refs until I saw how the refs did their job.
1] Sharking. You don't need to stand RIGHT UP TO THE TABLE with your fly pressed up against the rail to call a hit. You don't need to be exactly down the line of sight taking up 99% of the players sight-picture or breathing on the players arm. The referees became an obstacle to the players - something they shouldn't be.
It is so true in fact, that the players (being cutthroat) clued into this fact a few hours into day one and began to use the referees as a sharking tool. This carried on until day 3. I didn't see much of that after day 3 as the refs were much more reluctant to come to the table and watch a hit simply because the opponent sitting the chair is waving their hand around calling for a judgment. After day 2 they relied more on their own judgment as to what shouldn't and shouldn't be watched. At first, they would instantly jump to the table at any players demand to watch a hit regardless of the situation. Later on, they'd acknowledge the players request and look at the situation on the table first before commiting themselves to watching a hit that involves them sharking the player.
Did it work? Sure it did. After watching 8-10 hours of pool for 8 days - it was clear that players were getting totally sharked by the refs as the rate of errors seemed much higher when the ref was standing in their faces to watch a hit. This has nothing to do with the fact that the shots being called to watch are difficult - there were just as many situations that did not have a ref watching a difficult hit or watching the player's bridging that resulted in far less errors.
2] Calling hits.
Wow. Look at the Grady situation. That says it all. I didn't see the hit Grady made as I was watching the table next to that, but I did see the "scene" that was made after the call. Anyway, aside from blatantly bad calls, which there really weren't many of, my criticism here focuses on how the refs watch and call hits. For example, on certain situations where the cue ball is very close (almost frozen but not) to an object ball, you have to watch the hit from a particular side - OR, know in advance the only legal side of the cueball to actually strike using the elevated cue. You can call some hits from the results of the balls, others you have to watch which gets hit first - and some you must be in a certain spot to call them.
3] Watching clothes.
This is what the refs did most of. I saw about 3-4 fouls called the whole tournament for clothing, often around the waist area, touching other object balls. I'm sure there were more. The problem is, on most situations where the ref stooped down to eyeball the gap between the player's shirt and an object ball they are leaning over on - the referees were on the WRONG side of the player to determine whether or not a foul was about to occur. Depending on the shot, which hand the player uses, and how they lean against the table dictates which side you must view on in order to call a foul on the player. The player is NEVER 100% parallel with the surface of the table in order to judge clothing touching the ball simply when you no longer see light between the player and the ball from the other side. That's rediculous.
This was the best part. When Dennis Hatch was playing Ralf Souquet (group 66), Dennis had a very loose fitting shirt and during the hill-hill game - he leaned over for the shot and his shirt completely blanketed an object ball. I mean his shirt was hitting the cloth. Did the ref catch it? Nope. Both refs were nearby after having chatted with eachother for a second and the one responsible for this particular match was dozing off at the ceiling.
Ralf said "hold...this is a foul" while holding his hand making the "stop" gesture. While Ralf cannot get ball in hand for this as he has ZERO proof that the foul occured due to no ref watching Dennis, he did the right thing which was in his right to say. Ralf did nothing more than mention this to Dennis as you could tell from Ralf's reaction that he knew he had no way of getting justice. Dennis got up, tucked in his shirt so it would be closer to his body and then proceded to shoot. He missed the ball as I believe he was sharked by the incident (his own fault, not Ralf's), and I think (can't remember for sure) that this match was meaningless ot Ralf, but a win for Dennis meant advancement.
For all the idiotic, almost comical bending, stooping, leaning, peeking the refs did to watch for clothing fouls - they missed the absolute most blantant one of them all.
4] Time limits.
Oh boy, this is the worst of the worst. The tournament allowed 2 hours and 15 minutes per match. If the match was not finished in that amount of time - the match was called in favor of the person ahead in games. IE, if you're up 6-5 and time's up, you win. I believe this was abused a few times. Here's some background. When the match appears to be running slow - ie, score is 2-1 after 1:30 , the refs would bump up the score evenly, either a game for each, or 2 games for each. This was done to progress the match. However, this was not implemented universally. Some refs would do that early on in a match to ensure the players could play it out, others would slack off and warn the players when there was 15 minutes left then just call the match. They would hold their watches toward the end as if they were timing players or maybe keeping an eye on the clock - but that's pointless as there were clocks on the walls and often the offending slow-player would speed up their play when the ref was nearby with the watch.
This penalizes both players. If a particular player gets ahead and then begins totally obvious and downright annoyingly long slow play - the referee should take notice and penalize ONLY the slow player by awarding a game to the opponent. Look, a lot of the players played slow because if given the chance they'll take forever looking over a shot or a pattern, but a few were intentionally taking forever to freeze the opponent in the chair and run out the clock when ahead in a match. One player got up and down from a shot 12 times (I counted) before shooting. Shot took 7 minutes, and included 3 walk arounds AFTER the initial incoming inning walkaround and analysis that took quite a few minutes to begin with.
This player was a slow-play offender. Yet was never penalized, instead, depending on which ref was watching the matches involved - either the match was called, or both players bumped up in score (leaving the opponent less of a time frame and thus less opportunity to make a come back). Think about it. You might make up the 1 game deficit, but you can't do that when the other player is on the hill - you might not have the chance because it might take a couple of racks, or a successful break, or a run to do so. Bumping the score up (especially when the guy ontop is breaking) to the hill is unfair.
If this were one match, I wouldn't mind. But a particular player was involved in at least 4 matches of this type (that I know of, might have been more) with 2 of them being back-to-back. This means, that player was involved in a match that never reached 8 games for a winner, or had games added to both players scores.
To me, that indicated that that player has a track-record for being a slow player, whether intentional or not. The referees made NO NOTE OF THIS WHATSOEVER. Thus, this player's opponents were the victims of matches being called over at whatever the score was when the time was up. You cannot blame or penalize the other players when they've never been involved in a slow-play match, while the slow-player was involved in at least 4 matches that required the referees to intervene.
If both players are playing slow - FINE, bump them both up a game. If they both play slow - call the match finished. But when one player does it - fine the player a game. Not both players.
5] Announcing the wrong balls.
The refs would often announce the called shot - but they'd announce the wrong balls. The first few times this happened, I swear to God I thought I had hearing problems. Maybe it was the loud noise in Vegas messing with my ears. It wasn't. After a while I realized the refs were announcing balls from time to time that the player was not playing. The player would shoot the intended shot and the opponent would say nothing (as they know which one they're going for) but the ref would repeat the wrong ball.
6] Concessions.
OK, I understand that the IPT does not want the players conceding 8 balls and the such as A] it can be a sharking tactic and B] it cheapens the quality and seriousness of the tournament.
However, I had to laugh when Marlon Manalo was playing Efren Reyes. They both lagged for break and the balls were really close, however, it took no more than 1 second, 1 second for the players to see who won the lag. They began to do their thing (sit down and the other get their break cue) when the ref halts them and begins this, what appeared to me to be, an arbitrary measuring process that utilized his thumb and a cue ball. How silly. Is it really necessary to go through all this when BOTH players knew who won the lag and it was instantly conceded? Why does the ref assume he can see the difference better than Efren or Marlon who are 2 of the top 5 players on Earth? What makes this ref think that using a cue ball and his thumb is some repeatable and precise measuring device?
***
The refs did ok. I think most of these issues (except the time issues and the slacking off) were a result of them feeling pressure to officiate the matches as completely as possible. This made them some what overzealous I think and more of a problem than good in some instances. Refs in European cue sports are much more professional and skilled in all aspects (some mentioned above) and I think this is a result of experience as the Europeans have had and have demanded refereed tournaments for many years that we have not in the U.S.
It almost seemed that the benefit of having professional matches refereed was totally eliminated by the tactics and behavior of the referees themselves. That's a shame. Refs are suppose to improve the game/sport and conditions - not make them worse. I was so glad to learn that they'll have refs until I saw how the refs did their job.
1] Sharking. You don't need to stand RIGHT UP TO THE TABLE with your fly pressed up against the rail to call a hit. You don't need to be exactly down the line of sight taking up 99% of the players sight-picture or breathing on the players arm. The referees became an obstacle to the players - something they shouldn't be.
It is so true in fact, that the players (being cutthroat) clued into this fact a few hours into day one and began to use the referees as a sharking tool. This carried on until day 3. I didn't see much of that after day 3 as the refs were much more reluctant to come to the table and watch a hit simply because the opponent sitting the chair is waving their hand around calling for a judgment. After day 2 they relied more on their own judgment as to what shouldn't and shouldn't be watched. At first, they would instantly jump to the table at any players demand to watch a hit regardless of the situation. Later on, they'd acknowledge the players request and look at the situation on the table first before commiting themselves to watching a hit that involves them sharking the player.
Did it work? Sure it did. After watching 8-10 hours of pool for 8 days - it was clear that players were getting totally sharked by the refs as the rate of errors seemed much higher when the ref was standing in their faces to watch a hit. This has nothing to do with the fact that the shots being called to watch are difficult - there were just as many situations that did not have a ref watching a difficult hit or watching the player's bridging that resulted in far less errors.
2] Calling hits.
Wow. Look at the Grady situation. That says it all. I didn't see the hit Grady made as I was watching the table next to that, but I did see the "scene" that was made after the call. Anyway, aside from blatantly bad calls, which there really weren't many of, my criticism here focuses on how the refs watch and call hits. For example, on certain situations where the cue ball is very close (almost frozen but not) to an object ball, you have to watch the hit from a particular side - OR, know in advance the only legal side of the cueball to actually strike using the elevated cue. You can call some hits from the results of the balls, others you have to watch which gets hit first - and some you must be in a certain spot to call them.
3] Watching clothes.
This is what the refs did most of. I saw about 3-4 fouls called the whole tournament for clothing, often around the waist area, touching other object balls. I'm sure there were more. The problem is, on most situations where the ref stooped down to eyeball the gap between the player's shirt and an object ball they are leaning over on - the referees were on the WRONG side of the player to determine whether or not a foul was about to occur. Depending on the shot, which hand the player uses, and how they lean against the table dictates which side you must view on in order to call a foul on the player. The player is NEVER 100% parallel with the surface of the table in order to judge clothing touching the ball simply when you no longer see light between the player and the ball from the other side. That's rediculous.
This was the best part. When Dennis Hatch was playing Ralf Souquet (group 66), Dennis had a very loose fitting shirt and during the hill-hill game - he leaned over for the shot and his shirt completely blanketed an object ball. I mean his shirt was hitting the cloth. Did the ref catch it? Nope. Both refs were nearby after having chatted with eachother for a second and the one responsible for this particular match was dozing off at the ceiling.
Ralf said "hold...this is a foul" while holding his hand making the "stop" gesture. While Ralf cannot get ball in hand for this as he has ZERO proof that the foul occured due to no ref watching Dennis, he did the right thing which was in his right to say. Ralf did nothing more than mention this to Dennis as you could tell from Ralf's reaction that he knew he had no way of getting justice. Dennis got up, tucked in his shirt so it would be closer to his body and then proceded to shoot. He missed the ball as I believe he was sharked by the incident (his own fault, not Ralf's), and I think (can't remember for sure) that this match was meaningless ot Ralf, but a win for Dennis meant advancement.
For all the idiotic, almost comical bending, stooping, leaning, peeking the refs did to watch for clothing fouls - they missed the absolute most blantant one of them all.
4] Time limits.
Oh boy, this is the worst of the worst. The tournament allowed 2 hours and 15 minutes per match. If the match was not finished in that amount of time - the match was called in favor of the person ahead in games. IE, if you're up 6-5 and time's up, you win. I believe this was abused a few times. Here's some background. When the match appears to be running slow - ie, score is 2-1 after 1:30 , the refs would bump up the score evenly, either a game for each, or 2 games for each. This was done to progress the match. However, this was not implemented universally. Some refs would do that early on in a match to ensure the players could play it out, others would slack off and warn the players when there was 15 minutes left then just call the match. They would hold their watches toward the end as if they were timing players or maybe keeping an eye on the clock - but that's pointless as there were clocks on the walls and often the offending slow-player would speed up their play when the ref was nearby with the watch.
This penalizes both players. If a particular player gets ahead and then begins totally obvious and downright annoyingly long slow play - the referee should take notice and penalize ONLY the slow player by awarding a game to the opponent. Look, a lot of the players played slow because if given the chance they'll take forever looking over a shot or a pattern, but a few were intentionally taking forever to freeze the opponent in the chair and run out the clock when ahead in a match. One player got up and down from a shot 12 times (I counted) before shooting. Shot took 7 minutes, and included 3 walk arounds AFTER the initial incoming inning walkaround and analysis that took quite a few minutes to begin with.
This player was a slow-play offender. Yet was never penalized, instead, depending on which ref was watching the matches involved - either the match was called, or both players bumped up in score (leaving the opponent less of a time frame and thus less opportunity to make a come back). Think about it. You might make up the 1 game deficit, but you can't do that when the other player is on the hill - you might not have the chance because it might take a couple of racks, or a successful break, or a run to do so. Bumping the score up (especially when the guy ontop is breaking) to the hill is unfair.
If this were one match, I wouldn't mind. But a particular player was involved in at least 4 matches of this type (that I know of, might have been more) with 2 of them being back-to-back. This means, that player was involved in a match that never reached 8 games for a winner, or had games added to both players scores.
To me, that indicated that that player has a track-record for being a slow player, whether intentional or not. The referees made NO NOTE OF THIS WHATSOEVER. Thus, this player's opponents were the victims of matches being called over at whatever the score was when the time was up. You cannot blame or penalize the other players when they've never been involved in a slow-play match, while the slow-player was involved in at least 4 matches that required the referees to intervene.
If both players are playing slow - FINE, bump them both up a game. If they both play slow - call the match finished. But when one player does it - fine the player a game. Not both players.
5] Announcing the wrong balls.
The refs would often announce the called shot - but they'd announce the wrong balls. The first few times this happened, I swear to God I thought I had hearing problems. Maybe it was the loud noise in Vegas messing with my ears. It wasn't. After a while I realized the refs were announcing balls from time to time that the player was not playing. The player would shoot the intended shot and the opponent would say nothing (as they know which one they're going for) but the ref would repeat the wrong ball.
6] Concessions.
OK, I understand that the IPT does not want the players conceding 8 balls and the such as A] it can be a sharking tactic and B] it cheapens the quality and seriousness of the tournament.
However, I had to laugh when Marlon Manalo was playing Efren Reyes. They both lagged for break and the balls were really close, however, it took no more than 1 second, 1 second for the players to see who won the lag. They began to do their thing (sit down and the other get their break cue) when the ref halts them and begins this, what appeared to me to be, an arbitrary measuring process that utilized his thumb and a cue ball. How silly. Is it really necessary to go through all this when BOTH players knew who won the lag and it was instantly conceded? Why does the ref assume he can see the difference better than Efren or Marlon who are 2 of the top 5 players on Earth? What makes this ref think that using a cue ball and his thumb is some repeatable and precise measuring device?
***
The refs did ok. I think most of these issues (except the time issues and the slacking off) were a result of them feeling pressure to officiate the matches as completely as possible. This made them some what overzealous I think and more of a problem than good in some instances. Refs in European cue sports are much more professional and skilled in all aspects (some mentioned above) and I think this is a result of experience as the Europeans have had and have demanded refereed tournaments for many years that we have not in the U.S.
It set the mood for the whole day.
This made the score 5-3 instead of 4-4.
