Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe

[HawaiianEye]

No



Yes he would have given him the shot. 100%. He would have no other choice.

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?

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Yes - I agree its the only situation the TD could make. He did take his time though - presumably to find evidence of Earl calling the 2 as he suspected that this was the case. No evidence there though so the decision (that took a long time to made) went in favor of Earl.

What gets me though is people who argue that the decision should go with the player who calls the wrong ball.

The question remains: how is it possible that a spectator's video captured the call on the 2 and the official equipment didn't?...

 

[JAM]

All the Earl haters and bashers need to realize that the referee made the final call, and he ruled in favor of Earl. He's the one that should be held accountable right now, not Earl, not Jayson.

The referee claims he could not hear Earl's words ub the replay of the video that he listened to that was created and produced by the commentators. That is because Al and the other commentator were talking.

The referee did not have the advantage of hearing the railbird's video, produced by Arturo Reyes that is on Facebook. This video, you do hear Earl's words better. There is no commentator talking while Earl was talking in the railbird's video.

Bottom line, ref ruled in favor of Earl. Earl wins.

The aftermath between Earl and Jayson wasn't very pretty to watch. Jayson was angry and let it get the best of him. I feel bad for Jayson, and he has a right to be angry. But refs make wrong calls all the time in sports, and the players have to abide by them. That is what happened here. It is a shame it happened to Jayson Shaw who's been on a winning streak this year.

 

[john coloccia]

Here's right from Jayson's facebook post:

189 he called the 2 ball but is playing the 10 ball so I jump up after makes it say you make the wrong ball then all hell breaks loose

Even Jayson knows Earl was playing the 10. Come on people, just look at the table. There's no shot on the 2.

I'll bet that if we did a poll, guys over 45 or so would think the shot was good, and guys 25 and younger would think the shot is bad. I say that because I'm 42, and I know growing up that it would have been unthinkable to try and take advantage of an obvious slip of the tongue.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

All the Earl haters and bashers need to realize that the referee made the final call, and he ruled in favor of Earl. He's the one that should be held accountable right now, not Earl, not Jayson.

The referee claims he could not hear Earl's words ub the replay of the video that he listened to that was created and produced by the commentators. That is because Al and the other commentator were talking.

The referee did not have the advantage of hearing the railbird's video, produced by Arturo Reyes that is on Facebook. This video, you do hear Earl's words better. There is no commentator talking while Earl was talking in the railbird's video.

Bottom line, ref ruled in favor of Earl. Earl wins.

The aftermath between Earl and Jayson wasn't very pretty to watch. Jayson was angry and let it get the best of him. I feel bad for Jayson, and he has a right to be angry. But refs make wrong calls all the time in sports, and the players have to abide by them. That is what happened here. It is a shame it happened to Jayson Shaw who's been on a winning streak this year.

It was the TD's decision not the referee's, and in case the referee was not 100% of the whole situation (which is the case here) then the rule of satisfying his estimation of the shot made is not applied by fact. If a spectator could record something that the referee didn't hear proves by fact that the referee was not in correct place during a crucial moment of the match (no criticism, just human mistake), so he could not be 100% on top of the situation.

Also commentator's voices covering the shooter's call does not mean that careful inspection cannot clarify the issue.

Finally, there is no personal issue here, not by common sense. There is indeed influence in people's views by the specific player/s involved but most arguments I've seen so far (either side) are based on logical analysis.

 

[Swighey]

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'm not telling you either of those things. I have said though that none us of can 100% sure of what Earl or Jayson were thinking and that Earl called the 2 and pocketed the 10. Who should we second guess? I think neither of them - go with the rules.

 

[JAM]

It was the TD's decision not the referee's, and in case the referee was not 100% of the whole situation (which is the case here) then the rule of satisfying his estimation of the shot made is not applied by fact. If a spectator could record something that the referee didn't hear proves by fact that the referee was not in correct place during a crucial moment of the match (no criticism, just human mistake), so he could not be 100% on top of the situation.

Also commentator's voices covering the shooter's call does not mean that careful inspection cannot clarify the issue.

Finally, there is no personal issue here, not by common sense. There is indeed influence in people's views by the specific player/s involved but most arguments I've seen so far (either side) are based on logical analysis.

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.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

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.

Yes, but the person who is supposed to have the best view on the situation was not 100% sure of what took place so the final ruler could not have the perfect estimation, and that is why criticism may be applied to his decision.

 

[worktheknight]

Just my opinion.

I've read every post and I'm not going to comment on the table situation or on either player.

This whole setup was doomed to fail someone and some match. The fb feed shows people shooting on other tables nearby, very limited seating where people are walking around and the commentators really don't have a great view. The ref's position is way out of line. This was like shooting at a flea market. Really ??

This match ending fit the venue. The table should have been set in a more private area, camera above the table, mic's hooked up on players, commentators behind a clear shield and so forth.

I was present on a handful of WPBA tournaments and their setup ( ok, yes for tv ) was pretty darn good. Any comments from the players could easily be heard. I find it hard to believe that a event like this would not be picked up by a local feed. Maybe, even a local college just to document the event.

I know some are mentioning Earl walked away and sat in a corner, well, I have shot in Championship Matches and in a venue like this, it would be hard to sit in a chair and try and focus and keep my mind zoned. I've shot in special little final's area's that have bleachers on each side and a simple camera on the side, but a mic hooked onto the table light.
Just for a Amateur Championship.

Why not have several referees hanging out during the quarter finals to the end ?? This was a disaster venue and only led to a disaster.

I can feel for both players as I think they both done a darn good job in these conditions. No way should the conditions have allowed for this situation to even possibly have happened.

For the situation at the time a decision had to be made, the TD done what his evidence shown him.

 

[JAM]

Just my opinion.

I've read every post and I'm not going to comment on the table situation or on either player.

This whole setup was doomed to fail someone and some match. The fb feed shows people shooting on other tables nearby, very limited seating where people are walking around and the commentators really don't have a great view. The ref's position is way out of line. This was like shooting at a flea market. Really ??

This match ending fit the venue. The table should have been set in a more private area, camera above the table, mic's hooked up on players, commentators behind a clear shield and so forth.

I was present on a handful of WPBA tournaments and their setup ( ok, yes for tv ) was pretty darn good. Any comments from the players could easily be heard. I find it hard to believe that a event like this would not be picked up by a local feed. Maybe, even a local college just to document the event.

I know some are mentioning Earl walked away and sat in a corner, well, I have shot in Championship Matches and in a venue like this, it would be hard to sit in a chair and try and focus and keep my mind zoned. I've shot in special little final's area's that have bleachers on each side and a simple camera on the side, but a mic hooked onto the table light.
Just for a Amateur Championship.

Why not have several referees hanging out during the quarter finals to the end ?? This was a disaster venue and only led to a disaster.

I can feel for both players as I think they both done a darn good job in these conditions. No way should the conditions have allowed for this situation to even possibly have happened.

For the situation at the time a decision had to be made, the TD done what his evidence shown him.

Tap, tap, tap!

 

[THE MONTREALER]

jason shaw victim or defeated foe

Tap, tap, tap!

OK say Earle Strikland called the two ball are you allowed to change
your decision and shoot another ball which was in this case the 10 ball

 

[JAM]

OK say Earle Strikland called the two ball are you allowed to change
your decision and shoot another ball which was in this case the 10 ball

"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."

 

[john coloccia]

"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."

Do you have a reference for that? I remember seeing something like that somewhere and couldn't remember where, though I think it's obvious from the rule I did post that this should be the correct call regardless.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

"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."

Can you post a link to this one? I don't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[Swighey]

"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."

Where is this "official rule" from? Link?

 

[JAM]

I got that wording from a recent Facebook thread. Facebook is on fire right now with this topic.

I did find this on the WPA website: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=116&pagetype=rules#1.6

1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot.

For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.

It would seem that the referee's opinion of what was intended, what ball and what pocket was intended by the shooter, is what counts in the end.

Oh, make that referee, TD, or whatever word you want to insert there. I'm talking about the shot guy with the mullet haircut.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

I got that wording from a recent Facebook thread. Facebook is on fire right now with this topic.

I did find this on the WPA website: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=116&pagetype=rules#1.6

1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot.

For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.

It would seem that the referee's opinion of what was intended, what ball and what pocket was intended by the shooter, is what counts in the end.

Oh, make that referee, TD, or whatever word you want to insert there. I'm talking about the shot guy with the mullet haircut.

These things are not simple "details", when by fact the referee does not have a 100% clear estimation then by fact the TD may not have a 100% correct decision, that's what it's all about.

 

[one stroke]

has people wathced teh video of the match on shaws facebook?

earl clearly calls the 2.

he says before it "you know efren would play the carom"

its amazing people still defend this man who tried to cheat earlier in the match

he has been on the bad side of pool so many times but people defend him its unreal he is a POS and disgrace to the game

That may be true however is it unsportsman like after a guy lines up a shot clearly at the intended ball points at the pocket calls the wrong ball and you sit there and watch it know it and say nothing , then jump up the minute the ball it pocketed

1

 

[Wedge]

From Dragon Promotions

"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

 

[GideonF]

I got that wording from a recent Facebook thread. Facebook is on fire right now with this topic.



I did find this on the WPA website: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=116&pagetype=rules#1.6



1.6 Standard Call Shot

In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot.



For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.



It would seem that the referee's opinion of what was intended, what ball and what pocket was intended by the shooter, is what counts in the end.



Oh, make that referee, TD, or whatever word you want to insert there. I'm talking about the shot guy with the mullet haircut.

At its highest, it is clear to me that Jayson and most of those supporting his position know exactly what ball Earl intended to play in which pocket but think he should lose his turn because he said the wrong ball number. It is also clear that Jayson let Earl shoot knowing of the miscalled ball intending to capitalize on Earl's mistake.

When I read the rule, it requires that the "intended" ball and pocket be indicated. It is perfectly consistent with that rule to hold that if it is clear to the ref which ball the player intended to make, the shot is good despite saying the wrong number.

It is also noteworthy to me that Darren said he didn't think in such circumstances Earl should lose his turn (except for the fact of the earlier call in this match).

I don't play 14.1, and certainly don't referee events, but I don't think the rules unarguably favour's Jayson's position.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk