Justin Bergman vs Tom Cousins

nmh2008 said:
Some of the funniest excuses I've seen:

"Race to 30 is dumb, they should play 10 ahead instead." - OK, well in that case it'd have been over in 12 games.

"Justin just took awhile to figure out the break." - Sure, but breaking is kind of important. Also, in total they both broke similarly.

"Shoulda been winner breaks, alternating break is dumb"

"vs. Skyler he'd have no chance" - LOL

"[John Mars] Tom can play SVB next if he wants to win a house" - SVB could win himself a new bass boat if he wanted to play Josh, Alex (1P), or Fedor (any game)

It's so hard sometimes for us Americans to give others credit. Tom Cousins is an incredible player and he beat the brakes off of Bergman last night. And yes, winning by 5 games with an alternating break is pretty convincing
Click to expand...
I forgot one

"Justin is in better shape so if it were a real race to 50 or 100 he would have easily won"
 
GideonF said:
The rules are quite different - enough to cost you if you don’t learn them. For example:

On a CB frozen to your own OB, you must shoot away from the OB (and you are deemed to have hit that ball). If the OB you are frozen to moves it’s a foul.

You can’t play a “dirty combo” on a open table (stripe into solid etc).

You have to be careful about nominating balls in various situations.

You can’t play a deliberate foul (eg pushing opponents balls together if you have no shot). It’s a loss of game. Same if you don’t make enough of an effort to hit your ball on a kick.

Loss of game if you grab the CB as it scratches (I believe Shane lost a game that way in the event he played).

There are others. My point isn’t that Shane can’t win with those rules, my point is that if he doesn’t learn them well enough it can cost him at key moments.
Click to expand...

To prove this point, Bergman just failed to nominate stripes or solids (while frozen to a solid after the break) in the finals against Hatch. He’s played a lot of these events and still didn’t know that rule. It could have cost him the match.
 
GideonF said:
To prove this point, Bergman just failed to nominate stripes or solids (while frozen to a solid after the break) in the finals against Hatch. He’s played a lot of these events and still didn’t know that rule. It could have cost him the match.
Click to expand...
Semi-finals, but that's a great point! And last night in the 10-ball he played an intentional foul which is not allowed!
 
InsertCleverNameHere said:
Some of these rules are just so nonsensical it’s hard to take it seriously at all.
Click to expand...

That rule is sort of a natural offshoot of their touching ball rule. It’s the snooker based rule - touching a solid you must shoot away from it but you are deemed to have hit the ball you are touching.

Their touching ball rule is weird to me, and especially weird in rotation. If you’re frozen to the 1b you should be able to shoot straight at any other ball, make it, then shoot at the one.
 
easy-e said:
Semi-finals, but that's a great point! And last night in the 10-ball he played an intentional foul which is not allowed!
Click to expand...

I thought that was the finals. Glad you corrected me because I’m watching the finals now!

It wasn’t clear on the broadcast if an intentional foul was allowed in their 10b (clearly not allowed in 8b).
 
when you play a money match you make up your own set of rules. which both agree on.

to play a certain set of tournament rules which seem to be different on minor issues makes for a bad situation to occur.

in common sense rules if frozen to a ball you shoot and must move it to be considered a good hit on that ball.
 
GideonF said:
That rule is sort of a natural offshoot of their touching ball rule. It’s the snooker based rule - touching a solid you must shoot away from it but you are deemed to have hit the ball you are touching.

Their touching ball rule is weird to me, and especially weird in rotation. If you’re frozen to the 1b you should be able to shoot straight at any other ball, make it, then shoot at the one.
Click to expand...
I mean yeah I get that but it’s complete malarkey.
 
maha said:
when you play a money match you make up your own set of rules. which both agree on.

to play a certain set of tournament rules which seem to be different on minor issues makes for a bad situation to occur.

in common sense rules if frozen to a ball you shoot and must move it to be considered a good hit on that ball.
Click to expand...

On the first point (make up your own rules) I’ve seen money matches fall apart mid match because the players didn’t specify some rule and they can’t now agree. I’ve seen it most when the players are spotting balls in 9b/10b.

On the frozen ball rule, your perspective makes sense to you, me and everyone coming at it from the “American pool”. But if you are English, the snooker rule is that any time the CB, OB and tip are in contact at the same time, it’s an illegal push shot. This leads to the rule that shooting away is seen as hitting it. The English pool rules developed out of the snooker mindset. The so-called “International Rules” are an attempt to try to mix between American and English rules.
 
GideonF said:
... On a CB frozen to your own OB, you must shoot away from the OB (and you are deemed to have hit that ball). If the OB you are frozen to moves it’s a foul. ...
Click to expand...
Is UP USA doing something a bit different on this than the International 8-Ball Rules? In rule 6o(1) of those rules, it says: "A player shall not be penalised If playing away from touching ball(s) causes any touching ball to rock or move slightly because it was ‘resting’ on the cue ball."
 
AtLarge said:
Is UP USA doing something a bit different on this than the International 8-Ball Rules? In rule 6o(1) of those rules, it says: "A player shall not be penalised If playing away from touching ball(s) causes any touching ball to rock or move slightly because it was ‘resting’ on the cue ball."
Click to expand...

I believe it’s just the International rules. I was trying to describe how you have to play away from the frozen ball (ie you can’t “thin” the ball at all as they deem that a push). You are right that the OB can move if its a result of the OB ball settling once the CB is removed.
 
GideonF said:
I believe it’s just the International rules. I was trying to describe how you have to play away from the frozen ball (ie you can’t “thin” the ball at all as they deem that a push). You are right that the OB can move if its a result of the OB ball settling once the CB is removed.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't a tangent be established before shooting?
 
straightline said:
Shouldn't a tangent be established before shooting?
Click to expand...
The sentence immediately before the one I quoted in post 215 says: "A player must play away from ‘ALL’ touching balls at an angle of perpendicular (90 degrees) or greater and fulfil the requirements of a ‘legal shot’."

I guess the ref, if there is one, has to determine whether the 90-degree requirement is met.
 
AtLarge said:
The sentence immediately before the one I quoted in post 215 says: "A player must play away from ‘ALL’ touching balls at an angle of perpendicular (90 degrees) or greater and fulfil the requirements of a ‘legal shot’."

I guess the ref, if there is one, has to determine whether the 90-degree requirement is met.
Click to expand...
Not so reliable after the fact especially if it's a gravity foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top