Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe

Lou-
Go back and find my earlier posts in the thread. You'll get a better perspective of what happened and why. I was right there. This was terribly unfair to Jayson. Then, look at the picture of the table layout, also posted in the thread.

What did you think of Jayson's behavior at the end when Earl was trying to finish the match?
 
What did you think of Jayson's behavior at the end when Earl was trying to finish the match?

You mean when he threw 2 pool balls across the room and one hitting a spectator? That behavior? Ugly.

I don't disagree with Jayson conceding though. And I know there are many top players who are so upset about this that they won't be returning next year.
 
You mean when he threw 2 pool balls across the room and one hitting a spectator? That behavior? Ugly.

I don't disagree with Jayson conceding though. And I know there are many top players who are so upset about this that they won't be returning next year.

Earl just said live on Dennis Walsh's FB video that he'll shoot Jayson's liver out.

I think we need a re-match, a challenge match, a grudge match between Earl and Jayson. :D
 
This is semantics here. Whether the short guy with the mullet haircut who made the decision is labeled a "TD" or a "referee," that is who I was speaking about in my post. He is the ruling authority. He ruled in Earl's favor. End of story.

You mean the old guy, who tried to be a comedian?
 
"The official rule : If the Player or Referee (as in traditional 14.1 matches) calls the incorrect ball number on an obvious shot, the obvious shot and pocket called supersedes the mistaken numeric call." *in the case with Mr. Strickland's shot, it was obvious to the referee as well as the entire audience he was attempting to shoot the 10ball. He also indicated the shot with his cue beforehand during video replay. Furthermore, the mistaken ball called was the 2ball , which looked unplayable inside the stack with no obvious pocket. Furthermore, the earlier call should have also been in favor of Mr. Strickland on the first obvious shot call. *3 experienced 14.1 experts and officials unanimously agreed on all the above. * We would like to add that we encourage good sportsmanship first and gentlemanly conduct by all players. This includes the "Gentleman's Call" rule on obvious shots.

Wedge
Where did you find this? I didn't see it in the WPA rules. It's absolutely definitively in Earl's favor if these are the rules.
 
Are you telling me that Shaw THOUGHT Earl was shooting the 2-ball in that pocket?

Or, are you telling me that Shaw heard Earl call the 2-ball, but knew he was shooting the 10-ball into the pocket he looked at and intended for the 10-ball to go in and used the 2-ball call as a technical rule in order to take an obvious shot away from Earl?

I think this may sum it up pretty well and in my view Jason was looking to not out play Earl but to win on a possible technicality. They both played horrible and were frustrated at that point but it was obvious what Earl was doing it is not like he called the 2 shot at it and made the 10 instead and claimed he was shooting at the 10. The purpose of call shot is to make sure you shoot the ball to the pocket you intend to. And Earl did that. I wonder what I would have done if I were Jason? You want to win but do you want to win like that?
 
Que Sere Sera

Question for those taking Earl/TD's side.

What if the scenario were exactly the same, but they were playing 8 ball?

Earl calls the 2, but makes the 10.

Keep in mind the rules for call shot that have been posted are applicable to ALL call shot games.

It's similar to the shocking CMU defeat handed to Okie State by the Refs that don't know the rules. Mikela Tabb would never allow this.

mt.jpg

Link

Since intentional grounding is a foul that includes loss of down, that meant Oklahoma State turned the ball over on downs.

"There's a rule that says that the game cannot end on an accepted live ball foul. That's the rule. There's an exception to the rule that says if enforcement of the foul involves a loss of down, then that brings the game to an end," O'Dey told a pool reporter.

"So in that situation, we've had the opportunity to run it back through our hierarchy, which includes the national rules editor, and he confirmed that should have been a loss of down and the end of the game at that point, so that extension should not have happened."

The rule in question is Rule 3, Section 2, Article 3.1 in the NCAA football rule book: "A period shall be extended for an untimed down if ... a penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s). (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-a). The period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down."

The Mid-American Conference issued a statement that the officiating crew was in the wrong, but the result of the game would stand.

"The Mid-American Conference officiating crew ... made an error on the final play of regulation," Bill Carollo, the coordinator of football officials for the Collegiate Officiating Consortium, said in a statement. "The crew made a misapplication of the rule and should not have extended the contest with one final play. Despite the error, this will not change the outcome of the contest."

MAC officials weren't the only ones in the wrong. According to the Big 12, Coordinator of Football Officials Walt Anderson said "the Big 12 replay crew missed an opportunity to stop the game to inform the MAC officiating crew of the misapplication of the intentional grounding penalty as time expired."

According to the Big 12, NCAA rules permit instant replay to "correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock."

None of those explanations mattered to Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder, who issued a statement saying it's "incomprehensible" that the outcome can't be reversed.

"We were told there is nothing that could be done," Hoder said. "... The final score shows that Oklahoma State lost the game but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it."

Bill Hancock, the executive director of the College Football Playoff, told ESPN on Saturday night that committee members "will be well aware of what happened on the field" when asked how they will assess the Cowboys.

"That ability to comprehensively consider each game is one of the most significant benefits of the CFP protocol," Hancock said.

The Chippewas (2-0), who got the ball at its own 49-yard line, made the most of the refs' mistake.

CMU quarterback Cooper Rush lofted a Hail Mary pass that hit Kroll just inside the 10. As Kroll was being taken down, he pitched it back to Willis, who cut across the field and barely managed to score while being dragged down.

"To be honest, I actually had a missed assignment on that, I wasn't supposed to be right there, but it all worked for the better," Willis said. "We know Jesse Kroll is going to go up and get the ball every time; it's just something we practice all the time and we executed it."

Central Michigan fans might have had flashbacks to the Bahamas Bowl from two seasons ago, when the Chippewas covered almost the length of the field on a long pass-and-lateral play to score a touchdown and cut their deficit to one point with no time left against Western Kentucky. In that fabulous finish, Central Michigan went for the two-point conversion and the win but did not convert. This time, the Chippewas (2-0) were able to run off with one of their biggest victories ever.

"It's an improbable finish, but it's a situation that we practiced and rehearsed," Bonamego said. "We were able to execute and pull out the win."

The pool reporter asked O'Dey for clarity regarding the fact that the game should have ended and Central Michigan should not have been awarded possession:

"That is the interpretation from the rules editor -- the national rules editor, yes," O'Dey said, referring to Rogers Redding, the NCAA's national football rules editor.

When asked what might happen next, O'Dey would not say.

"I'm not at liberty to make any further statement as far as that," he said. "That falls outside of my jurisdiction."

Carollo, however, made it clear that the play could impact the officiating crew.

"As in all games involving the Mid-American Conference, every play within every game is thoroughly reviewed and graded on its accuracy and has impact on the evaluation for every official," he said.

The game also resulted in some good fortune for a few bettors in Las Vegas, where Oklahoma State was -1200 on the money-line to beat CMU straight-up. William Hill took six money-line bets on the Chippewas -- the largest being $100 at +750. Meanwhile, CG Technology reported taking two $500 money-line bets on the Chippewas at +850 odds, which resulted in a $4,250 payday.
 
Its so funny to see people saying how they would of asked Earl for clarification or just given him the shot because they knew what he meant.
My bet is none of them have had to spend a week around Earl or play him in semi final match.

There is one constant in many of these shit shows over the years.

Earl called a ball. He shot another one. Now DP is spinning it like everything is OK because it all came out in the wash. Whole deal is ridiculous.

Daz has said it best: #poolworld
 
Last edited:
I always thought it would be interesting to know political parties on topics like this. I would think Democrats for Jayson and REPUBLICANS for Earl. Just to understand mindsets outside of politics.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Oh, man, Pangit ruins the thread by posting a HUGE photo, requiring all of us to scroll from east to west just to read a post.

This sucks.
 
Nonsense, the call can't be in favor of Earl because Jayson "should have said something while Earl was going down on his shot" (a whole other can of worms). The onus of calling the shot is on the player who calls it.

Nonesense? So when Earl called the 2, it was obvious for Jason what Earl wanted do to do? and in which pocket to shoot the 2? Since there was no pocket for the 2, Jason (or any Ref) cud not have possibly known)! Then Jason's should have stopped Earl before shooting and get clarification. Since Jason did not ask for clarification, he let Earl shoot with the intention to jump up and force a technicality.

Earl misspoke. That's it! Should he lose the match because of that, even when everyone, spectators, Ref, TD and especially Jason himself, all know that Earl was shooting the 10? That would be wrong in my eyes.
 
I think the people who think Earl was in the right, lol, should go back and review my earlier posts in this thread. Besides calling the 2, and aiming/shooting in the exact direction of the 2 (making the shot NOT obvious- review the still photo of the layout), Earl should've been disqualified an hour before the situation happened because he had removed himself from the playing area for half of the match.
 
This was terribly unfair to Jayson.

This is what bothers me. If you want to say Jayson should get the call because of Earl's verbal misstatement, then fine. I can see calling it either way: For Jayson based on Earl's verbal mistake or for Earl because obviously he was shooting the 10. But all this stuff about how Jayson was cheated and Americans are cheaters and I'm never going there again - pure nonsense.
 
I agree

Only a nit....



Tha tha thats all folks,
Nick :)

I do remember Efren not calling 2 9balls and loosing the games for not calling the pocket. His opponent refused the game. Had to take the win though. They were not nits you see.
 
Last edited:
This is what bothers me. If you want to say Jayson should get the call because of Earl's verbal misstatement, then fine. I can see calling it either way: For Jayson based on Earl's verbal mistake or for Earl because obviously he was shooting the 10. But all this stuff about how Jayson was cheated and Americans are cheaters and I'm never going there again - pure nonsense.

I agree with this school of thought! :)
 
JS calling the two ball thing on Earl is a pure, bush, APA, bar league move. Total rubbish at that level of play.

Players change there minds, particularly when in a tough position with few options. So if Earl calls the two but turns around and gets down on the ten, you'd have to be a total nit to try what Shaw did.

Having played in a few 14.1 tournaments, about the only time you call a shot is if there could be some doubt which ball you're shooting at because of a combo, carom, or bank. No living human -- who has ever picked up a cue -- could be uncertain what ball Earl was shooting at.

Lou Figueroa
You put it perfectly this is the kind of thing you see in pool leagues and in my view not a way to try and win a professional tournament. Now I understand why in the old videos you see the referee verbally calling every shot.
 
This is what bothers me. If you want to say Jayson should get the call because of Earl's verbal misstatement, then fine. I can see calling it either way: For Jayson based on Earl's verbal mistake or for Earl because obviously he was shooting the 10. But all this stuff about how Jayson was cheated and Americans are cheaters and I'm never going there again - pure nonsense.

Better go back and find my previous posts. Earl should've been disqualified in this match an hour before this shot.
 
Back
Top