Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?
- Thread starter loggerhead12
- Start date
meaning the mission was accomplished
Going to have a hard time proving Mosconi never touched or moved an object ball.
The rules of Straight Pool back then and NOW have always been "all ball fouls!" Mosconi was always careful not to touch a ball even during his exhibitions.
So Shaw breaks into the fourth rack but the stack stays relatively intact.
The CB is near the foot rail and he shoots a ball up table to the right pocket corner, stunning the CB to his left where it bumps the 9 ball, which is at about a half diamond from the second diamond on the side rail. The CB ends up about an inch to the right of the 9 ball. Jayson has two shots: a longish shot to the up table right corner or he can jack up over the 9 and shoot the 1 ball that is at the back center of the stack. He elects to shoot the 1 and opens up another couple of balls and continues his run.
Lou Figueroa
I have nothing to do with organizing anything.
Lou Figueroa
I just get to talk
to the trolls here
hmmmm, no.
There is such a thing as "Fair Use" which means folks can copy a limited amount of copyrighted material for the purposes of commenting, critiquing, or to parody.
Lou Figueroa
Which means Willie was use to playing all ball fouls because that was the standard back in the day -- so it is very unlikely he'd have fouled any ball.
Lou Figueroa
but can't prove it
docgpmiller
Active member
According to Jayson Shaw Interview he thought he was playing cue ball fouls. He feels he set two records now and will be attempting to break both of his records.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I know I'll only add to the "My daddy can beat up your daddy" ping pong going on, but my accurate nuance to Jay's correct statement is . . .
. . . ."all balls fouls" for 14.1 is a broad brush that is actually situationally-dependent:
a) requiring an officially designated referee or,
b) requiring a format that includes an opponent -- an opponent thereby customarily empowered to serve judgmentally as the referee.
The format/structure for John's 626, and Jayson's 714 involved neither A nor B.
Both players were in a specialized situation pre-announced and fully understood to be: multiple attempts to set a new record for balls-run.
Quite obviously not a match or competitive situation and readily understood (by the above A or B parameters) as "CB fouls only".
And lest anyone assert that the camera is the referee (an objective qualified observer) that didn't quite work out did it?
We have a report of a room containing half a dozen BCA-approved, objective (one presumes) observers closely watching repeat viewings
on an 80-inch screen and ending up in their initial session with honest disagreement among themselves.
. . . changed attitudes or agenda-ed non-objectivity -- with Bobby uninvited, would seemingly come in the later private second session.
Arnaldo
I’ve watched it over and over and over on my television, and do not see the touch.
What’s being said is that the 9 ball moved and that there is movement of the 9 and that is the object ball foul.
Of all the things that could have contributed to the movement of the 9 ball, other than a touch, no one has offered up autofocus or the table’s cloth under Jayson’s fingers possibly being a factor.
Such a light touch would have been more noticeable I would think.
How is it that all six of the reviewers see this and I can’t?
it’s not like I don’t know the game or film.
I don’t have an 80 inch screen but my 65 inch LG is pretty new-
I for the life of me, cannot see the movement that’s in question, even with high power magnifying lens on hi-def tv.
Shaw is bridging high and even in slow motion I am unable to discern the 9 ball movement-
I dunno.
WHO HERE HAS PURCHASED SHAW’S DVD AND WATCHED THE 45th BALL MOVE?
Talk to me.
I’m sorry.
It hasn’t killed mine.
Jayson’s hand is on the rail, the cue ball is close to the 9 ball, which is away from the rail, and I see no movement on the 9 ball as Jayson bridges, strokes, and makes contact with the next shot, which is the 1 ball.
The cue ball had bumped the 9 in the shot prior, so there is space between the 9 & the cue ball.
Jayson then pockets a ball up table, driving the cue ball into the pack, then, Jayson says, “I’ve got to really work for this one” (bridges on the rail at 8minutes 30 seconds, releases the shot at 8:32)
Someone PLEASE tell me what they see-
I know, I know, the BCA says it moved and their decision is what matters…
But I’m asking the other people who have purchased and watched the run if, at that juncture, “they” (“they” being the purchaser) sees movement in the 9 ball.
I’m at over 40+ times.
I’ve spaced the views out over hours, days, viewing aids (Magnifying glass & magnifying glasses), daytime, nighttime, close to the tv, away from the tv, and I still don’t see any movement of the 9 ball.
It’s the 45th ball, yes.
CP and Jayson, Bobby, Lou-- There categorically was absolutely not a trace of verifiable movement or contact with the nine!I’ve watched it over and over and over on my television, and do not see the touch.
What’s being said is that the 9 ball moved and that there is movement of the 9 and that is the object ball foul.
How is it that all six of the reviewers see this and I can’t?
I for the life of me, cannot see the movement that’s in question, even with high power magnifying lens on hi-def tv.
Shaw is bridging high and even in slow motion I am unable to discern the 9 ball movement-
WHO HERE HAS PURCHASED SHAW’S DVD AND WATCHED THE 45th BALL MOVE?
I've watched the stroke beginning at 8:28 till past the impact on the CB and Jayson's shaft rises up and the OB is on its way to the corner pocket.
-- I watched it 10 times on my TV then an equal amount on my big PC monitor with a magnifying glass set up.
-- CP and I, obviously have exactly the same camera angle and visual information as the BCA folks had, and we both did all we could via layman examination regarding careful scrutiny.
-- Higher-tech AZBers who own the DVD should contributively do the same as CP and I did, but using advanced technical skills and equipment.
-- The 714 should stand -- unblemished -- and un-asterisked in the record books.
-- I recommend that Bobby's team or a hired technician digitally and carefully extract (via careful copying) from the crystal clear original, a 6-second or so clip of the pertinent footage. Apply viewable normal speed and various degrees of probative & information-rich slo-mo.
-- Next, virtually all certified ruling entities like the BCA or anything else (Olympics, etc.) answerable to governing or licensing authorities, always have an appeals process.
-- If the BCA has no such mechanism in place, or has never wanted such, then it's time to place the expert-generated clip (clearly showing various speeds) in the court of public opinion by Bobby and his team uploading the tech expert's definitive clip to all media platforms available to them (including AZB), after first communicating to the BCA that this seems to be the only fair-treatment recourse available to them. Often a third mutual discussion results.
-- If all is inconclusive and no objectively viewable proof exists -- rather than a subjective panel opinion that's vacillated from mixed opinion to a later "he definitely fouled" opinion" . . . the judgment should then, by ample historical precedent -- go in favor of the shooter.
Arnaldo ~ This is not a petty matter. That beautiful 714 of Jayson's deserves fair, complete, and legally-just treatment and unblemished standing in the record books.