I would agree that this makes sense...Yea agree, to not at least give him credit from the next breakshot onward is ludicrous.
Giving him the 11 remaining balls on the table (besides the break ball) is nonsensical.
I would agree that this makes sense...Yea agree, to not at least give him credit from the next breakshot onward is ludicrous.
First shot has to have q ball in the kitchenSo the foul happened on the 45th ball, and they allowed the run to restart from the 46th ball?
Why not start the run at the beginning of the next rack (57th ball)? He'd still have the record.
You can watch it at one of his presentations, but you already know that.Where can I see John Schmidt’s run?
Can I purchase it?
That Nick and Al can’t miss something and make a mistake seems way harder to believe than that another group of people watched the video and did see a ball touched.According to the two experts at Derby who watched Jayson’s run and notarized it-
Nick Varner (14.1 expert) and Upstate Al (video expert)
THEY would have noticed and not signed their names to an inauthentic run.
Absolutely not.
Sorry, missed this post. You pointed it out before me.So the foul happened on the 45th ball, and they allowed the run to restart from the 46th ball?
Why not start the run at the beginning of the next rack (57th ball)? He'd still have the record.
John SchmidtWho was on the committee?!
Who says? This run by JS didn't start with CB in the kitchen...First shot has to have q ball in the kitchen
Um, neverFirst shot has to have q ball in the kitchen
First shot has to have q ball in the kitchen
Here is a reason why the run should NOT count after a foul. What prevents someone from a starting a high run attempt by blasting the opening rack to create a wide spread (such an 8-ball break), then purposely foul by intentionally toughing an OB, and then start the run? You're pretty much guaranteed a much easier initial 14 balls to start the run.A run is a run, in match play or practice play. Does not matter if you start with BIH, a wide open rack, etc. Put me down strongly in the camp of whatever was run after a foul counts.
I personally think all these straight pool practice runs should be cue ball fouls only.
Why? That just makes the game look silly. We are talking about a "world record attempt", not a bunch of people who have found a pool table and start knocking balls about.I personally think all these straight pool practice runs should be cue ball fouls only.
On the other hand, since it's not a match, I suppose it it could be argued that match break rules don't apply and any run, even one started in the middle of a rack, is valid.
pj <- obviously don't know WTF I'm talking
I have not seen John advertise a presentation anywhere.You can watch it at one of his presentations, but you already know that.
Have you watched Jayson’s run?That Nick and Al can’t miss something and make a mistake seems way harder to believe than that another group of people watched the video and did see a ball touched.
Agree, it must start with a break shot with 15 object balls racked. Otherwise you can play warm up shots, and you could start again whenever you miss.The mid rack thing is interesting. On one hand a “high run attempt” traditionally starts with a break.
On the other hand it’s harder to start mid rack than simply with a break shot.
Back to the first hand, what is a mid rack run? Can you start with a pre-placed cosmo layout that leads to an ideal starter break?
Back to the second hand, or is it just fine because the mid rack was the result of a playing from a break shot and not from an intentional layout.
Back to the first hand, but doesn’t any illegal contact with any mid rack balls spoil the purity of the mid rack’s organic layout? Like what if someone “accidentally” moved problem balls apart and decided to start a run there?
All this back and forth makes me feel that a non-match “high run attempt” must start with a break shot.
Exactly 658 is the correct total in an exhibition that clearly begins with a ball in hand break shot.The mid rack thing is interesting. On one hand a “high run attempt” traditionally starts with a break.
On the other hand it’s harder to start mid rack than simply with a break shot.
Back to the first hand, what is a mid rack run? Can you start with a pre-placed cosmo layout that leads to an ideal starter break?
Back to the second hand, or is it just fine because the mid rack was the result of a playing from a break shot and not from an intentional layout.
Back to the first hand, but doesn’t any illegal contact with any mid rack balls spoil the purity of the mid rack’s organic layout? Like what if someone “accidentally” moved problem balls apart and decided to start a run there?
All this back and forth makes me feel that a non-match “high run attempt” must start with a break shot.
Here is a reason why the run should NOT count after a foul. What prevents someone from a starting a high run attempt by blasting the opening rack to create a wide spread (such an 8-ball break), then purposely foul by intentionally toughing an OB, and then start the run? You're pretty much guaranteed a much easier initial 14 balls to start the run.
You mean break shot with 14 object balls racked.Agree, it must start with a break shot with 15 object balls racked. Otherwise you can play warm up shots, and you could start again whenever you miss.
What in the hell are you talking about? My high run is 55. My opponent missed part-way through a rack, I finished the rack and broke the next, and missed after 55 balls. You're suggesting the first few balls of my run don't count? WTF are you on?Giving him the 11 remaining balls on the table (besides the break ball) is nonsensical.
NoYou mean break shot with 14 object balls racked.