Sorry, but I disagree with you completely that a referee or tournament director should ever rely on the audience's opinion of what happened.
Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Sorry, but I disagree with you completely that a referee or tournament director should ever rely on the audience's opinion of what happened.
2 ball is solid and 10 ball is stripes. Different scenario.
exactly, especially at Steinway, you know how much action is going down in the crowd? You think people can be fair? All I hear during the video is the irishman supporting shaw the whole time. That doesn't sound unbiased to me lol.
According to international regulations he has a right to do so, and will decide if he will rely on it or not. If for eg the spectator's video would get into his hands he may have ruled differently. Instead, he based his ruling on a non clear official video and a distantly placed referee. Perhaps he should have explored other options too.
You're wrong. In 8-ball, there are solids and stripes.
And, FWIW, I've played 8-ball when slop counts. House rules!
Yep, based on the above rule and watching the vid on Shaw's Facebook page, I would have to side with Earl. He clearly played the 10 ball and pointed at the correct pocket for the ten -- he had a mere brain-fart and called the 2.
You hit the nail on the head. That's it!
Still does not mattet, nobody heard earl call the 2 except everyone rooting for shaw?? Even the ref did not here. Now, earl messed up earlier, so why not pull something out of your arse since Earl was gonna win anyways, nothing to lose, and shaw fans immediately follow shaws lead ans say he called the 2 when the 2 was never a shot on the table ??? Little to convenient for my liking
Earl clearly lines up the 10 ball, there is no one other than a blind man that couldn't see his intended shot , and there was clearly no shot on the 2 ,, so the fact remains is the intended ball was pocketed and that's the spirit of the rules intent
1
I can't remember ever seeing anyone jump so fast out of his chair the way Shaw did unless it was league play ,, I certainly would not expect it at a professional level especially in a 14.1 event where they pride themselves in looking professional
1
All you guys are really missing the point still.
This exact situation happened earlier in the same match with Earl calling the wrong ball on an obvious shot, and he admitted it and lost his turn at the table.
Why is this situation any different?
Why, because this time Earl realized he better lie or he's going to lose. After the decision went his way and he won, then he admitted he had another brain fart and did call the 2 by mistake.
This exact situation happened earlier in the same match with Earl calling the wrong ball on an obvious shot, and he admitted it and lost his turn at the table.
Why is this situation any different?
Why, because this time Earl realized he better lie or he's going to lose. After the decision went his way and he won, then he admitted he had another brain fart and did call the 2 by mistake.
Earl misspoke and called the wrong ball - he clearly didn't change his mind. Fine, it was a verbal mistake, and Shaw can call him on it even though it's a nitty technicality. But for Shaw to be all indignant and say he was cheated because the ref didn't hear Earl's misstatement - that's a bit rich.
Obvious shot should supersede the mistake of calling wrong ball. Heck the spectator view gives perfect angle that the 10 was obvious.
Two wrongs do not make a right. So just because a mistake was made earlier in the match with a similar call does not mean you give a wrong call here.
Either way, no lack of drama with either of these guys when they play.
Two wrongs do not make a right. So just because a mistake was made earlier in the match with a similar call does not mean you give a wrong call here.
Either way, no lack of drama with either of these guys when they play.
Well I have to go with the view that it was TD, John H decision but he screwed up cos he did not take into account (or did not have evidence ) that Earl called the 2.
But if the rules folks here quoted about subsequent intended shot superseding previous called shot is correct , then even the video evidence of Earl calling the 2 is redundant . So John H decision in favor of Earl stands.
Except there are these 2 little curved balls -
1) the earlier similar situation (Earl called a ball in combo but other ball was pocketed) was awarded against Earl (loss of turn to Earl) so how to square that with this TD decision which awarded for Earl ?
2) if the 10 ball is obvious, why did Earl call it since obvious shots are usually not called ?
:grin:
But if the rules folks here quoted about subsequent intended shot superseding previous called shot is correct , then even the video evidence of Earl calling the 2 is redundant . So John H decision in favor of Earl stands.
Except there are these 2 little curved balls -
1) the earlier similar situation (Earl called a ball in combo but other ball was pocketed) was awarded against Earl (loss of turn to Earl) so how to square that with this TD decision which awarded for Earl ?
2) if the 10 ball is obvious, why did Earl call it since obvious shots are usually not called ?
:grin:
NYC cue dude
Banned
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.
A lot of straight pool players, if hearing their opponent call the wrong number ball while obviously lining up a shot on another ball, would have interrupted their opponent and asked them which ball they intended to shoot.The gentlemanly way to handle the situation.
It would be helpful if some past champions would give their opinion, Sigel,Varner,West,Martin etc.Charlie Ursitti, from a referees point of view.
It would be helpful if some past champions would give their opinion, Sigel,Varner,West,Martin etc.Charlie Ursitti, from a referees point of view.
Last edited: