Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe

[sjm]

SJM,
I'm asking you because I know you and trust you and your judgment.

In your experience:

In straight pool as you have come to learn it and play it and seen it played, WHEN A REFERREE IS PRESENT and a player calls out "2 Ball"(even though the 2 ball can't be made in any conceivable pocket) BUT carefully prepares to shoot another entirely obvious shot, say the 10 Ball, what does or can the referee normally say or do?

Thanks,

JoeyA

I am not of the opinion that a 14.1 referee hearing one call and seeing what appears to be another shot attempted would ever comment because a) the shooter is likely already over the shot and may be sharked, and b) it is not the role of the ref, who might be positioned anywhere at the table, to assess whether the called ball is makeable.

That said, we're in new territory here, Joey, because in a refereed 14.1 match in a pro event, the referee is expected to repeat the shooter's call for the benefit of both the shooter's opponent and the onlooking fans. On this occasion, as the referee racked the balls but, inexplicably, did not pay attention to the match, it can be argued that this was, de facto, an un-refereed match. Had that been the interpretation, however, fan input would have been admissible***, and rest assured, not a single fan present claimed to have heard a call of the ten ball but a few heard the call of the two ball As head referee and tournament director Leyman asked the presiding ref what ball had been called and made it clear that he was excluding fan input, one can assume that Leyman treated this as a refereed match, and I feel he was right to do so.

***At the US Open in October 2015 , Bob Jewett, who wrote much of the rule book, ruled in an un-refereed match between Dechaine and Grabe that fan input was admissible. In that case, the dispute centered around the cue ball having hit the overhanging magic rack on the bottom rail. In the absence of a ref, Bob, citing the section of the rules that allow for it, relied on fan input, and several fans attested to the cue ball having hit the magic rack. Nobody cared for the rule that this constituted a foul, but the rule was enforced to the letter of the law.

 

[BRussell]

***At the US Open in October 2015 , Bob Jewett, who wrote much of the rule book, ruled in an un-refereed match between Dechaine and Grabe that fan input was admissible. In that case, the dispute centered around the cue ball having hit the overhanging magic rack on the bottom rail. In the absence of a ref, Bob, citing the section of the rules that allow for it, relied on fan input, and several fans attested to the cue ball having hit the magic rack. Nobody cared for the rule that this constituted a foul, but the rule was enforced to the letter of the law.

When this came up I thought of that same incident, in part because I saw that Denis Grabe complained about Americans cheating in both instances, which is understandable because an American got the call over a European in both (though arguably Jayson is as much of a New Yorker now as Earl). What's interesting to me aside from the spectator input is that in the Magic Rack incident, 1) as you pointed out, the letter of the law was enforced, whereas Dragon said the spirit of the law should take precedence at the straight pool event, and 2) Denis did not admit that the ball hit the rack, which is similar to Earl not admitting that he called the wrong ball. So in a way, the roles were reversed.

 

[Shannon.spronk]

So just a quick question. Had this match been refereed like it should have been with the ref calling out the shots and Earl called two ball and the ref repeated two ball and Earl shot the ten would he have lost his turn?

I am not of the opinion that a 14.1 referee hearing one call and seeing what appears to be another shot attempted would ever comment because a) the shooter is likely already over the shot and may be sharked, and b) it is not the role of the ref, who might be positioned anywhere at the table, to assess whether the called ball is makeable.

That said, we're in new territory here, Joey, because in a refereed 14.1 match in a pro event, the referee is expected to repeat the shooter's call for the benefit of both the shooter's opponent and the onlooking fans. On this occasion, as the referee racked the balls but, inexplicably, did not pay attention to the match, it can be argued that this was, de facto, an un-refereed match. Had that been the interpretation, however, fan input would have been admissible***, and rest assured, not a single fan present claimed to have heard a call of the ten ball but a few heard the call of the two ball As head referee and tournament director Leyman asked the presiding ref what ball had been called and made it clear that he was excluding fan input, one can assume that Leyman treated this as a refereed match, and I feel he was right to do so.

***At the US Open in October 2015 , Bob Jewett, who wrote much of the rule book, ruled in an un-refereed match between Dechaine and Grabe that fan input was admissible. In that case, the dispute centered around the cue ball having hit the overhanging magic rack on the bottom rail. In the absence of a ref, Bob, citing the section of the rules that allow for it, relied on fan input, and several fans attested to the cue ball having hit the magic rack. Nobody cared for the rule that this constituted a foul, but the rule was enforced to the letter of the law.

 

[ronscuba]

For future tournaments and rules, what happens if the players speak different languages ?

Does calling via pointing at object ball and pocket become the rule and not verbal ?

 

[sjm]

So just a quick question. Had this match been refereed like it should have been with the ref calling out the shots and Earl called two ball and the ref repeated two ball and Earl shot the ten would he have lost his turn?

Yes, Earl would have lost his turn.

 

[one stroke]

Yes, Earl would have lost his turn.

However Earl would have heard that and changed it to the correct call , as in all sports it's about getting it right , Earl shot the intended ball and it was rightfully upheld ,
No one wants to see games lost on simple technical error it's all about getting it right in the end they did just that


1

 

[vjmehra]

However Earl would have heard that and changed it to the correct call , as in all sports it's about getting it right , Earl shot the intended ball and it was rightfully upheld ,
No one wants to see games lost on simple technical error it's all about getting it right in the end they did just that


1

But then surely whats the point of ever calling a shot?

If playing an obvious shot outranks physically calling a shot, why would anyone ever call a shot?

Isn't the point that whatever is called removes any doubt as to what was the intended shot and therefore should determine whether the turn is over or not?

(I'm not sure what the 'official' rules say, that just seems logical to me).

 

[PoolBum]

But then surely whats the point of ever calling a shot?

So that the referee is clear on what the intended shot is. Shots that need to be called are shots that are not obvious (banks, billiards, combinations, etc.).

Earl's shot on the 10 was obvious, despite his verbal hiccup.