Yes sir. Looks to bump the rail 3 times right before the pocket.
starting here: Click Here for Highlight
Last edited:
Poll, with video, legitimate beef, sharking, or...
- Thread starter alstl
- Start date
Yes sir. Looks to bump the rail 3 times right before the pocket.
starting here: Click Here for Highlight
That ball very well may not have hit a rail but from our angle you can't tell for sure. Regardless I don't think the incoming player is going to call a foul there unless he knew for sure it was a foul. Look at the shot he would have had even if he didn't have bih.
I agree Syd. Just a theory on Spain's perspective.
I believe this same situation came up at the Ultimate 10 Ball. The ruling was that obvious combos are ok to not call. I believe they made the same ruling here.
Ray
Agreed. If obvious combos are ok not to call, then no reason to call that one.
Rich is a pretty good guy. The three ball shot it is tough to tell from the camera, so no idea on that one. But the other guy acting like a b*tch over a combo that the guy even lined up the angle with his cue?! Come on. 
Total sharking/b*tch move.
City Lights sure has mellowed. At one time something like that would have ended up with a shouting match minimum or more likely a step outside, ha ha. Or maybe just because it is Rich involved and he is smart enough to just walk away.
Edit: oh, Andrea is the TD. That explains the lack of fireworks. She is an awesome and fair person everyone respects.
Total sharking/b*tch move.City Lights sure has mellowed. At one time something like that would have ended up with a shouting match minimum or more likely a step outside, ha ha. Or maybe just because it is Rich involved and he is smart enough to just walk away.
Edit: oh, Andrea is the TD. That explains the lack of fireworks. She is an awesome and fair person everyone respects.
What if there's a fish pond in the middle of the watermelon patch?
I don't know anyone in the video, just the names they've been given in this thread. I'm just callin' it like I see it..........
The 3 Ball :
Looks like it hits the rail about an inch before the pocket opening. That's the way it appears on the TV, but without being there, it's hard to say.
The Combo Shot :
At 2:29:25 the announcer says "This format is, you have to call your pocket". If that's the rule, then it's the rule. Period.
I highly doubt that when this Marc kid gave up BIH on the 3 ball, he sat down and thought to himself, "M*****F*****, Rich is gonna play that 6-7 combo, and I'm gonna jump out of my chair if he doesn't call the pocket."
That being said, if I were Marc, it never would have reached that point. I wouldn't have given up BIH on the three ball if I felt that I made a legal shot. I don't care whether or not Rich thinks he 'saw it different'. If I felt I made a legal shot, I'm not giving up the table. And in the absence of a referee, the shot goes in favor of the shooter.
(Note: In all honesty, if I thought no rail was contacted, I would definetly give up BIH).
Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's playing. If the rule is 'call pocket', then call the f***in' pocket. How hard is it to say, "7 in the side" ?
Here's a different scenario........ if you're playing a pro player, and you play that 6-7 combo without calling the pocket, would the pro call you on it ?
The 3 Ball :
Looks like it hits the rail about an inch before the pocket opening. That's the way it appears on the TV, but without being there, it's hard to say.
The Combo Shot :
At 2:29:25 the announcer says "This format is, you have to call your pocket". If that's the rule, then it's the rule. Period.
I highly doubt that when this Marc kid gave up BIH on the 3 ball, he sat down and thought to himself, "M*****F*****, Rich is gonna play that 6-7 combo, and I'm gonna jump out of my chair if he doesn't call the pocket."
That being said, if I were Marc, it never would have reached that point. I wouldn't have given up BIH on the three ball if I felt that I made a legal shot. I don't care whether or not Rich thinks he 'saw it different'. If I felt I made a legal shot, I'm not giving up the table. And in the absence of a referee, the shot goes in favor of the shooter.
(Note: In all honesty, if I thought no rail was contacted, I would definetly give up BIH).
Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's playing. If the rule is 'call pocket', then call the f***in' pocket. How hard is it to say, "7 in the side" ?
Here's a different scenario........ if you're playing a pro player, and you play that 6-7 combo without calling the pocket, would the pro call you on it ?
Well if that is true, then the guy in the red shirt got away with the same foul he tried to call at 1:46:45, where he makes a cut shot in the side (when it could have gone two ways) without verbally declaring the shot. He points in its direction with his cue, but did not say a word, and if pointing counts as 'calling your shot' then Rich did the exact same thing when he was lining up the combo at the end before addressing the cue ball.
I think the foul on the 3 ball had him steamed because he saw the match (hill-hill) slipping away, and was grasping at anything to complain about/change things. I think everyone has seen that happen a zillion times.
Is the rule that you have to VERBALLY call the pocket, or is pointing acceptable ?
If it's verbal, the guy in the hat should have called red shirt on it at 1:46:45, then.
If it's simply 'point to your pocket', then the guy in the hat never pointed to the pocket (the shot starting at 2:28:30). He lined up the combo shot, but NEVER pointed to the pocket.
He may have looked at the combo, but he never called the pocket. The red shirt's argument is that the 6 could have been banked cross-side.
As far as the hill-hill match slipping away, yeah, on some level maybe I can buy into that. Sure, maybe the guy in red was stewing about giving up the table on what he considered a legal shot (the 3 touching the rail).
From watching the film, it seems that they briefly discussed the logistics of the shot, and then the guy in the hat picked up the cueball.
(Note: I'm not complaining in any way, but it's too bad that there's no audio).
When I've played in tournaments, and a 'rail contact' issue comes up, it's amazing how many players become mathematicians and physics experts in the blink of an eye
If red shirt felt the shot on the 3 was legal, he should not have relenquished control of the table so easily, especially on a hill-hill game. Call the ref or TD if you have to.
And if I'm playing 'call your pocket', it's MY responsibility to call the pocket. If my opponent wants to penalize me on a shot that I don't call the pocket (no matter how obvious it is), then I really have no leg to stand on. The rule is 'call your pocket'.
Hypothetically, if you (or anyone, for that matter) are playing a pro player, and you're the one that played that 6-7 combo without calling the pocket, do you think the pro would call you on it ?
Exactly what I say.
Then you have to get into the definition of 'pointing'. Without knowing the specific rule as far as "calling your shot" (how you call, verbal or not, what sort of shots you must call, etc) it is pretty obvious red shirt is just being hypocritical, because his opponent actually got down and lined it up (pointing right at the pocket), he didn't just wave his cue near a pocket like red shirt did.
Agreed! His response when the 3 ball shot gets questioned is pretty telling also.
Assuming it wasn't an obvious gimme shot (which this one was, especially with the guy lining it up) absolutely!
That said though, the guy in the hat is Rich Geiler, not some bum off the street. It's obvious what he was going for and complaining about that shot is just being a poor sportsmanship douche, in my opinion.
At one time Vidal was up 5-3 and then 6-4 and on the hill, and let Geiler get back to hill-hill. It is obvious he was butthurt over (at the time) seeing the match sliding through his fingers and decided to find something to complain about. Like I said, I think everyone has seen similar behavior a zillion times in tournaments or leagues.
Edit:
You and PT109 used a lot less words to say what I was trying to say. Agreeing with you guys!
Last edited:
I watched this live also and missed the 3 ball shot , rail question . Lot of people doggin' Marc here without being in his shoes and forgetting that emotion can get wrapped up here .
Maybe he conceded on the 3 and then got pissed afterwards . Maybe he conceded and second guessed himself for doing it . Where was Rich when he said the 3 never touched a rail ?
I don't know either guy but i'd bet both have someone to vouch for their character . It's like pickup basketball if your calling fouls on each other .Looked like Rich had an easy shot on 3 ball in hand or not.
Tit for tat on the playground .
Call pocket?
Several people have suggested that since you have to call your pocket, the guy who made the combo was "technically" in error. I have a slightly different take on the situation.
Neither player was calling obvious shots despite the fact they were "technically" required to call ALL shots. The combo was very obvious in my opinion.
Therefore, if you do not hold your opponent accountable to call an obvious shot consistently, you lose the right to justifiably call a foul on an obvious shot simply because you are about to lose. Obviously, you are allowed to do it but it reflects very pooly on your character as the poll has reflected.
If the guy sitting down had concerns about the shot when it wasn't called, he should have asked what the shooter intended to do but we all know that the combo was obvious and the guy on the sidelines simply found the situation to be a good opportunity to mess with his opponents rhythm.
The shooter was in the right. Hence, the shooter stayed at the table.
What we should really be debating is whether an attempt to rattle your opponent in this way is just part of the game we all should all be prepared for. Many believe sharking is part of the game. While most sharking is very subtle it is often too vague to enforce. Perhaps we should just accept that the "bad" guy in this situation did what he needed to win within the rules. Character be damned!
Based on the length of this thread, it looks like he will get his 15 minutes of infamy.
Several people have suggested that since you have to call your pocket, the guy who made the combo was "technically" in error. I have a slightly different take on the situation.
Neither player was calling obvious shots despite the fact they were "technically" required to call ALL shots. The combo was very obvious in my opinion.
Therefore, if you do not hold your opponent accountable to call an obvious shot consistently, you lose the right to justifiably call a foul on an obvious shot simply because you are about to lose. Obviously, you are allowed to do it but it reflects very pooly on your character as the poll has reflected.
If the guy sitting down had concerns about the shot when it wasn't called, he should have asked what the shooter intended to do but we all know that the combo was obvious and the guy on the sidelines simply found the situation to be a good opportunity to mess with his opponents rhythm.
The shooter was in the right. Hence, the shooter stayed at the table.
What we should really be debating is whether an attempt to rattle your opponent in this way is just part of the game we all should all be prepared for. Many believe sharking is part of the game. While most sharking is very subtle it is often too vague to enforce. Perhaps we should just accept that the "bad" guy in this situation did what he needed to win within the rules. Character be damned!
Based on the length of this thread, it looks like he will get his 15 minutes of infamy.
Last edited:
I'm calling foul.:angry:
..you deleted the guy on roller skates
just admit it Al...you'll feel better
I don't want to be perceived as trying to target you or anyone specifically, Spider1. I just find this topic (and the subsequent discussions) interesting........
An opponent ("Dick") playing my teammate (BCA league) apparently tries to bank a ball one rail into the side pocket. The ball hits next to the point on that pocket and misses, but comes back and drops into the opposite side pocket (the side with the first rail for the cross-side bank). Essentially a double-bank.
Dick lines up to shoot again, and my teammate calls him on it. So Dick says to my teammate, "that's what I intended to do".
For about 4 or 5 minutes, they 'discussed' which pocket he was playing. Eventually my teammate gave him the table (cause he was tired of the guy's BS), but the point was that the shooter never called the pocket.
Dick's argument was that he was playing the double bank intentionally. Ok, fine, whatever. If that's the case, it's not an obvious shot, then the pocket needs to be called.
(Note: In the above, "Dick's" argument was that he intentionally played the double bank. BCA league rules don't care how the ball gets there, you just have to call the pocket. If he would have simply 'called that pocket', the 'discussion' might not have happened).
Frankly, the combo shot looked like it almost wasn't going to drop. There's no audio, is it possible the shooter miscued ? Didn't stroke it properly ? He could have lined up, and decided the combo was too risky. If I'm in red shirt's position, how do I know he wasn't going to cut the 6 in the top right corner pocket, and got lucky with the 7 on a miscue ?
I'm not trying to make excuses, and while I agree that the combo seems obvious, it's tough to say either way if none of us are at the table playing. Straight in shots, more or less, are 'obvious'. Combos, banks, kicks, caroms, etc. ? There should be no question. The shooter should make thier intent clear, leaving no opportunity for the non-shooter to raise any questions. Call the ball and the pocket you intend to put that ball in.
All that being said, if red shirt would have tried to foul the hat for not calling a pocket on a single ball, straight in shot, then I would consider that a 'nit' move.
However, if I'm playing a combination shot, I'm not leaving anything to chance, and telling my opponent my intentions, just to avoid this type of confrontation. How hard would it have been to say, "7 in the side" ?
While I completely understand the point of views that the "6-7 was obvious", the rule is call-pocket. When I play in league or tournaments, if my shot involves more than one object ball, I'm makin' sure my opponent knows what I'm doing, regardless of how obvious the shot looks. Hell, the 6 could have been married to the 7, and the 7 hanging in the jaws, and I'm STILL gonna say, "7 in the side" !!!
Whether I'm playing a pro or a banger, I'm making my intention clear, so there's no misunderstanding.
Maybe, maybe not. Like you mention later in your post about similar type of behavior in leagues, I can recall many instances similar to this. One in particular stands out, though.
An opponent ("Dick") playing my teammate (BCA league) apparently tries to bank a ball one rail into the side pocket. The ball hits next to the point on that pocket and misses, but comes back and drops into the opposite side pocket (the side with the first rail for the cross-side bank). Essentially a double-bank.
Dick lines up to shoot again, and my teammate calls him on it. So Dick says to my teammate, "that's what I intended to do".
For about 4 or 5 minutes, they 'discussed' which pocket he was playing. Eventually my teammate gave him the table (cause he was tired of the guy's BS), but the point was that the shooter never called the pocket.
Dick's argument was that he was playing the double bank intentionally. Ok, fine, whatever. If that's the case, it's not an obvious shot, then the pocket needs to be called.
(Note: In the above, "Dick's" argument was that he intentionally played the double bank
. BCA league rules don't care how the ball gets there, you just have to call the pocket. If he would have simply 'called that pocket', the 'discussion' might not have happened). Yeah, I'll buy into that, too. After watching a few more times, it almost seems like red shirt felt it wasn't a good hit, but tried to keep the table Hat called him on it, and red shirt surrendered.
Maybe. But I've seen guys at leagues and tournaments do the same type of thing pre-shot, and do something entirely different.
Like I said before, I don't know any of the entities involved. I'm going by what I see on the video.
Maybe. But on the same note, red shirt may have seen the shot differently than the shooter.
Frankly, the combo shot looked like it almost wasn't going to drop. There's no audio, is it possible the shooter miscued ? Didn't stroke it properly ? He could have lined up, and decided the combo was too risky. If I'm in red shirt's position, how do I know he wasn't going to cut the 6 in the top right corner pocket, and got lucky with the 7 on a miscue ?
I'm not trying to make excuses, and while I agree that the combo seems obvious, it's tough to say either way if none of us are at the table playing. Straight in shots, more or less, are 'obvious'. Combos, banks, kicks, caroms, etc. ? There should be no question. The shooter should make thier intent clear, leaving no opportunity for the non-shooter to raise any questions. Call the ball and the pocket you intend to put that ball in.
All that being said, if red shirt would have tried to foul the hat for not calling a pocket on a single ball, straight in shot, then I would consider that a 'nit' move.
However, if I'm playing a combination shot, I'm not leaving anything to chance, and telling my opponent my intentions, just to avoid this type of confrontation. How hard would it have been to say, "7 in the side" ?
While I completely understand the point of views that the "6-7 was obvious", the rule is call-pocket. When I play in league or tournaments, if my shot involves more than one object ball, I'm makin' sure my opponent knows what I'm doing, regardless of how obvious the shot looks. Hell, the 6 could have been married to the 7, and the 7 hanging in the jaws, and I'm STILL gonna say, "7 in the side" !!!
Whether I'm playing a pro or a banger, I'm making my intention clear, so there's no misunderstanding.
No worries bud, we're all here to discuss things and this one (and the different views on it) are pretty interesting.
Well, I can see where you are going here, and I might agree, but even if he didn't know who Rich was (and how he played) he did just play 12 games in a row against the guy, and he had to have noticed that his opponent played fantastic position and had tons of control on the cb....so I don't see how he could have seen that shot attempt and NOT known it was going for the side. In other words, even without seeing him line it up (which was about as obvious as it gets), looking at the way the shot was hit and the speed...I would think anyone would know it was an attempt for the side. And Vidal shoots pretty sporty himself, so it isn't like he's a confused hacker himself with no idea what someone is doing at the table. I just think it was sour grapes after he got snagged on the 3 ball shot earlier.
Absolutely, without being right there (and hearing audio
) it is tough to say for sure.I agree with you, but you know how these things go: both players are playing friendly, not calling ticky-tack kind of stuff like that (note rule is apparently EVERY shot must be called, but had not been played that way entire match) until one of them sees the match about to end for them and suddenly gets upset/serious about it.
Agreeing with you here for sure!