Manalo was Robbed

[onepocketchump]

I know this has been mentioned before but I just watched the show for the first time yesterday.

Marlon Manalo played a safety against Bustamante where he thinned the 6 very thin and nestled up behind it. The referee called a foul and gave Bustamante ball-in-hand. Manalo lost the set from there.

After reviewing the shot in slow motion I am convinced that Manalo hit the six first. At worst it was a simultaneous hit.

Perhaps the IPT wasn't ready for such an occurence and it worked out for Manalo anyway I think as he got to play Efren for the chance to move on. Although I don't know, had he won that match then maybe he would have ended up the GLI winner without needing to beat Efren. I don't understand why the IPT didn't use the tape to determine the hit. For such an important event with so much riding on it and for an organization striving for credibility it would have seemed to me to be the natural path to use instant replay on questionable calls.

John

 

[jjinfla]

They did review it in slo mo after the match and said it was a good call.

How can it possibly be a simultaneous hit? Either he hit the ball and then the rail or he hit the rail and then the ball. In fact wouldn't a simultaneous hit be a foul? Simo hits usually go to the shooter but in this case the CB has to hit the rail after it hits the OB. One event has to follow the other.

I was there and when he shot it my first impression was that something didn't look right. I was 20 feet away so I am in no position to really know one way or the other.

But of course that is why there was a ref there. It is his job to call the shots as he sees them and it is the players job to live and die by their decision.

One thing to keep in mind is that Manalo never complained about the call.

Jake

 

[JAM]

Here's what happened, John. When Marlon executed the "safety" shot, the referee called it a foul. Marlon was in obvious disagreement, but rather than make a big deal out of it mid-match, he returned to his designated chair, to allow Bustamante to shoot next.

After the match concluded, Marlon then came forth and verbally expressed his dismay and disappointment that the shot he executed was called a foul, as he believed it was a good hit.

Deno and several other IPT staff members did review the videotape, but it was AFTER the match concluded. The referee is the ultimate authority, as we all know, during tournament matches. I've seen referees make bad calls MANY times, more than I would like to remember. I am not stating that this referee made a bad call, as he was the one standing right over the shot, not me and not the video camera, but this referee was right there.

However, after seeing it on TV, John, I agree with you that Marlon did, in fact, make a good hit.

BTW, poor Marlon later on in the tournament had another bad referee happening when the referee thought the game had concluded and swooped up all the balls to rack them. I'm not sure why the referee was racking the balls either. I thought the players were supposed to. Maybe the referee was racking them because this was a semi-finals match that Marlon was in. However, it was Marlon's shot next, and the referee mistakenly swooped up his balls, resulting in the game having to start over.

When it happened, rather than becoming boistrous and angry at the referee, Marlon just politely got up and walked away from the table for a minute or two to re-gain his composure, poor fellow. He did display a very professional demeanor, though, when he was in the pit. I know MANY players who would have verbally exploded, causing an ugly scene for all. Marlon handled it like the true champion that he is, IMHO.

JAM

 

[pooltchr]

I wasn't there like the ref, but in watching it on tv, my first impression was that he hit the rail first. Watching the replays, I saw nothing that would have made me change my mind. I think it was a good call.
Steve

 

[onepocketchump]

They did review it in slo mo after the match and said it was a good call.

How can it possibly be a simultaneous hit? Either he hit the ball and then the rail or he hit the rail and then the ball. In fact wouldn't a simultaneous hit be a foul? Simo hits usually go to the shooter but in this case the CB has to hit the rail after it hits the OB. One event has to follow the other.

I was there and when he shot it my first impression was that something didn't look right. I was 20 feet away so I am in no position to really know one way or the other.

But of course that is why there was a ref there. It is his job to call the shots as he sees them and it is the players job to live and die by their decision.

One thing to keep in mind is that Manalo never complained about the call.

Jake

He sure did compalin about the call. As the referee called it he protested that it was a good hit. Afterwards he was only concerned that he not be seen as a liar. He did say that he wasn't going to sweat the past though and was going to focus on the present.

If there was less than a cueball's space between the object ball and the rail then it could have been a simultaneous hit. However I believe that it was a good hit. In slow motion you can clearly see the path of the balls.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

I wasn't there like the ref, but in watching it on tv, my first impression was that he hit the rail first. Watching the replays, I saw nothing that would have made me change my mind. I think it was a good call.
Steve

I had exactly the opposite reaction to the shot when I first saw it. I felt like it was a good hit and still feel that way after watching the replay in super slow motion.

John

 

[ironman]

Here's what happened, John. When Marlon executed the "safety" shot, the referee called it a foul. Marlon was in obvious disagreement, but rather than make a big deal out of it mid-match, he returned to his designated chair, to allow Bustamante to shoot next.

After the match concluded, Marlon then came forth and verbally expressed his dismay and disappointment that the shot he executed was called a foul, as he believed it was a good hit.

Deno and several other IPT staff members did review the videotape, but it was AFTER the match concluded. The referee is the ultimate authority, as we all know, during tournament matches. I've seen referees make bad calls MANY times, more than I would like to remember. I am not stating that this referee made a bad call, as he was the one standing right over the shot, not me and not the video camera, but this referee was right there.

However, after seeing it on TV, John, I agree with you that Marlon did, in fact, make a good hit.

BTW, poor Marlon later on in the tournament had another bad referee happening when the referee thought the game had concluded and swooped up all the balls to rack them. I'm not sure why the referee was racking the balls either. I thought the players were supposed to. Maybe the referee was racking them because this was a semi-finals match that Marlon was in. However, it was Marlon's shot next, and the referee mistakenly swooped up his balls, resulting in the game having to start over.

When it happened, rather than becoming boistrous and angry at the referee, Marlon just politely got up and walked away from the table for a minute or two to re-gain his composure, poor fellow. He did display a very professional demeanor, though, when he was in the pit. I know MANY players who would have verbally exploded, causing an ugly scene for all. Marlon handled it like the true champion that he is, IMHO.

JAM

He does appear to be a very "classy" gentleman. I thought it was a good hit, but it is a lot easier from your seat than down on the floor, at times.

 

[The Kid]

I thought it was a good hit, obviously a very close call.
I think it's the type of call where it has to go to the shooter.

But I think his choice of shot there was awful, your in control of the rack, just don't do anything stupid.
He would have been better off hitting one of his other solids down table towards the 2 tied up balls and stopping the cue ball behind one of his other solids.
Leaving Bustamante hooked and in a lot of trouble.

 

[onepocketchump]

Marlon was shown the tape of the shot later and agreed it was a foul. Although I was not the ref who made the call...I was there when they showed it to Manalo. I've watched the shot quite a few times now (I also had the benefit of several camera angles) and have never seen one where I thought it was anything but a foul.

This is a very common safety. Most of the times a shooter will elect to very thinly touch the object ball first then the rail. Manalo tried to go rail, ball, rail. While it certainly could have been done...it looked to me like there was never another rail after contact with the object ball.

Well I guess that's that. If everyone it affected agreed it was a foul then it was. I guess Marlon will think twice about his shot selection from now on.

I also thought that it would have been more prudent to freeze the cueball to the back of the ball that was frozen to Busta's last ball. Knock Busta's ball free and he has nowhere to go with it. Manalo gets ball in hand or at least retains control of the table with no balls tied up.

Busta played a super great shot to get out though - great TV - great pool!

John

 

[JAM]

Actually, I don't mean to be inflammatory but this is not entirely accurate....

I stand corrected, and I did not interpret your post to be inflammatory at all.

....I was not the ref involved but here's what happened:
Reyes was down on the eight ball. He didn't like something about the shot and stood up and went back to buff his cue. Ref mistakenly grabbed the two or three balls. Balls were re-spotted using video replay. Reyes makes eight ball and wins game. The game was played and counted accordingly. Manalo was never at the table at the time nor should he have been at the table.

I read a thread about this same subject matter on the Main Forum where IPT Member Linda Carter also corrected my explanation of the incident involving Marlon, and she did state the exact same scenario as you.

I do remember the balls were grabbed by the referee. Marlon did exit the tournament room immediately after it happened for a brief couple of moments. He was quiet in his demeanor, very unassuming, and walked away from the playing area without incident, in a very professional manner, IMHO.

My point in even mentioning the incident of the referee swooping balls out of turn was not meant to degrade a referee at the IPT KOTH in any way whatsoever.

The mention of the incident by me was to state how well Marlon Manalo handled himself in the public arena when faced with, for lack of a better term, difficulties when competing in a high-pressure environment like the KOTH.

The referees have a tough job. I couldn't do it, calling good or bad hits. Referees are human beings too. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it!

JAM

 

[mnShooter]

All refs should know how the cueball reacts off the object ball. I have been on the wrong end of this once and it cost me the match. I think this should be in some sort of referee school. It was a bad call. Marlon got screwed.

CueTable Help

For some reason the cueball won't show up in the Wei diagram. It seems very buggy these days. Anyways, if it was a bad hit the cueball would have followed the red line. It's all about the tangent line. If it was a good hit the cueball would have followed the six like it did. I cannot believe all these refs do not know how the cueball reacts. You cannot tell if it is a good hit by watching the contact, you need to watch how the cueball reacts.

 

[gin314]

marlon was robbed

i saw the tape like everybody else and it looked like he just grazed the ball but a few days later i had dinner with him and he told me that after the match bustamante agred it was a bad call and apoligized but marlon was upset that he didnt do the honarable thing when it happened and made an addional 10,000

 

[Brian in VA]

What I saw

It's interesting to me that with everyone who believes they saw it clearly, even on slow motion, there are still differing answers.

What I saw at normal speed, while watching the broadcast, was the cue ball hit the rail and then bump the object ball and follow it toward the corner pocket without either ball hitting a rail. I called foul immediately and thought that slo-mo proved my eyes correct. I call shots regularly in our league and at several tournaments around here and the action of the cue after the hit supported what I saw as well.

This strikes me as similar to umpires making calls in a baseball game. And while players and managers can argue rule interpretation, and occasionally get the initial ruling overturned, the call (on a pitch, tag, etc) is never overturned. (In my admittedly poor memory.)

Did Manalo get robbed? Maybe although I don't think so. Was he a top notch sportsman? Absolutely, at least it looked that way on the telecast. Will things like this ever be resolved perfectly? Probably not. And that's what makes sports, and more importantly this game, great.

Happy Independence Day to all!

Brian in VA - wishing you all freedom from bad calls!

 

[mnShooter]

All I got to say is go try it on a pool table. The only way you can get the cue to follow the ball like it did is by hitting the object ball first. If you hit the rail first the cueball just stops.

 

[hippiepool]

I wasn't there like the ref, but in watching it on tv, my first impression was that he hit the rail first. Watching the replays, I saw nothing that would have made me change my mind. I think it was a good call.
Steve

if the referee was not called over to watch the hit , then it should have gone to the shooter. I personally dont see how this ref can call the hit ten seconds after the shot has been made , and yes , it was a bad call.

 

[jsp]

All refs should know how the cueball reacts off the object ball. I have been on the wrong end of this once and it cost me the match. I think this should be in some sort of referee school. It was a bad call. Marlon got screwed.

CueTable Help

For some reason the cueball won't show up in the Wei diagram. It seems very buggy these days. Anyways, if it was a bad hit the cueball would have followed the red line. It's all about the tangent line. If it was a good hit the cueball would have followed the six like it did. I cannot believe all these refs do not know how the cueball reacts. You cannot tell if it is a good hit by watching the contact, you need to watch how the cueball reacts.

mnShooter...I don't follow your arguments. How can the CB, for a good hit, follow the path of the 6 if the CB (by definition) hit the 6 before the rail? If anything, I would think a good hit would have followed the red arrow more. Marlon definitely put a good deal of right english on the CB such that it would nestle up underneath the 6 ball after contacting the rail, so it would have followed the green arrow either way.

For this scenario, I think it's better to look at the action of the 6 ball instead of the CB. If the CB hit the 6 undoubtedly before the rail, then the 6 would have distanced itself from the the CB before the CB, with its right hand english, crept up behind the 6 after coming off the rail.

However, this is not really what you see from all the replays. You see that the CB and 6 travel together, which kinda implies that the CB never did hit the 6 before hitting the rail. At best, the CB hit the 6 and rail simultaneously, which is still foul (I believe).

Either way, that shot was way too close to call...it definitely could have gone either way. One thing is for certain, Marlon made that shot much closer than it should have been, and Busta made a bad ass bank to "take advantage" of the situation. Blame Marlon for his shot selection (or execution) and applaud Busta for his out.

EDIT: Saw the replays again yesterday night. To my surprise, it didn't look like he used right english at all. If anything, it seemed as if he used left english??

 

[ScottW]

I've got the luxury of having a Tivo and having had that show recorded. When that bit came up, I watched it several times, from the several angles provided, in slow-motion and frame-by-frame.

It looked like a bad hit to me - that cue ball brushed the rail just slightly before it touched the six.

 

[ridewiththewind]

I've got the luxury of having a Tivo and having had that show recorded. When that bit came up, I watched it several times, from the several angles provided, in slow-motion and frame-by-frame.

It looked like a bad hit to me - that cue ball brushed the rail just slightly before it touched the six.

I agree, Scott. Both my husband and myself were watching the replays very closely, and we both thought it was a foul....the CB clearly contacting the rail just nano-seconds before contacting the 6 ball.

Lisa

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

Table Roll

I guess Marlon will think twice about his shot selection from now on.


John

I also watched the shot in slo-mo and it was so close that it's hard to say if the hit was good or not.

I don't think it was a bad shot choice however, because if it was a foul I don't think it was because of bad execution by Marlon - I think he got screwed by a bad table roll - And since I play one pocket all of the time and I'm often shooting very soft, I'm all too aware of these kind of table-roll-offs....

....To me it looked like the cueball rolled off slightly downhill/to the left, immediately after the cue ball left the tip of Marlon's cue, resulting in the cueball curving a fraction to the left of where Marlon had correctly aimed it to go.........Ghost

 

[onepocketchump]

I've got the luxury of having a Tivo and having had that show recorded. When that bit came up, I watched it several times, from the several angles provided, in slow-motion and frame-by-frame.

It looked like a bad hit to me - that cue ball brushed the rail just slightly before it touched the six.

I have the same thing and I thought it was a good hit.