..........
Last edited:
Possible cheating AzB'er at Denver Open last night?
- Thread starter Kickin' Chicken
- Start date
And to be fair, I should emphasize that Bill Meacham may have been right about the TT hit that apparently started all this in motion. No one has posted that they actually saw the hit, just afterward when the TD was called over.
I will say, however, that I also subscribe to the school of thought that two wrongs don't make a right. I would never fool with the score.
The lesson: If you are playing in an important match and some BS comes up, STOP PLAY and deal with it IMMEDIATELY. I believe the TD alluded to this at around post #4.
Best,
Brian kc
I will say, however, that I also subscribe to the school of thought that two wrongs don't make a right. I would never fool with the score.
The lesson: If you are playing in an important match and some BS comes up, STOP PLAY and deal with it IMMEDIATELY. I believe the TD alluded to this at around post #4.
Best,
Brian kc
Last edited:
Well, how about them apples.
I just posted that no one said they saw the hit, then this...
Thanks for the eyewitness report. :thumbup:
Best,
Brian kc
He can define the game.
I have no doubt in what you saw. Thanks for posting this. I played against Bill in the 70's and 80's he was nothing short of a gentlemen. Having said thatwhenever I played for $$ or in a tournament I have always let my opponent define the rules. If I feel he is abusing said rules I will try to turn that right on to his arse! I don't want to get even, I want to get ahead!! Eye for an Eye. Time for a cold COORS!!
I have no doubt in what you saw. Thanks for posting this. I played against Bill in the 70's and 80's he was nothing short of a gentlemen. Having said thatwhenever I played for $$ or in a tournament I have always let my opponent define the rules. If I feel he is abusing said rules I will try to turn that right on to his arse! I don't want to get even, I want to get ahead!! Eye for an Eye. Time for a cold COORS!!
My question here is what would the TD have done after the fact. Nothing! He would have said you should have called me over to watch the hit.
Sometimes a foul is so obivious that it's had to believe that some think they can get away with it.
Lewis, don't worry about his reach because he can step on your toes at that distance.
Ha ha! It goes to the shooter. Everyone knows this.
You guys are starting to accuse Tommy of not calling a foul on himself but if HE doesn't think he fouled, then he wont call it on himself. Who would call a foul if you really feel you didn't do it? And everyone knows that to end an argument is to say "there was no ref present."
I can vouch for Tommy's character, just like you are all doing with Bill. He wouldn't do anything like that deliberately.
As for Bill, it doesn't sound like he realized he moved to beads.
I can tell this thread is going to go on and on but it's all just use it as a learning experience. Bill needs to next time call the TD/ref over so he can canvass the audience of the foul. And Tommy should call a ref over to do the same about the score.
Let's stop accusing them both of cheating. Things happen; sounds like both was mistake on their part and not deliberate. Just learn how to solve them for next time - calling a ref.
You guys are starting to accuse Tommy of not calling a foul on himself but if HE doesn't think he fouled, then he wont call it on himself. Who would call a foul if you really feel you didn't do it? And everyone knows that to end an argument is to say "there was no ref present."
I can vouch for Tommy's character, just like you are all doing with Bill. He wouldn't do anything like that deliberately.
As for Bill, it doesn't sound like he realized he moved to beads.
I can tell this thread is going to go on and on but it's all just use it as a learning experience. Bill needs to next time call the TD/ref over so he can canvass the audience of the foul. And Tommy should call a ref over to do the same about the score.
Let's stop accusing them both of cheating. Things happen; sounds like both was mistake on their part and not deliberate. Just learn how to solve them for next time - calling a ref.
They can canvass the audience....
Melanie, the problem with that is they may both have devoted friends in the audience that may be biased and call it in either of their favor. Witnessed a lot of that over the years. Tough problem, no answers.
I NEVER like to ask the audience what happened. That's asking for trouble. More often than not a problem (like the questionable hit and the score) can be resolved by asking each of the players relevant questions.
What happened here with Bill and Tommy is an example of what can happen in the heat of battle. To be perfectly honest if I am 100% sure that my opponent pulled a fast one on me, I will gladly wait for my opportunity to return the favor. I've seen many a pool match become a war just because of things like this.
Bottom line, if you foul on a shot, admit it! A good player knows when he fouled better than anyone else. Both these guys are good players.
..........
Last edited:
thank you for the edit, sir!
I wonder why that isn't the standard rule for tournament play?
Does anyone know what would happen in the US Open (match not on the TV table) if somebody forgets to mark a game?
the catch
The catch is that to judge by the position of the balls the players have to agree where the balls moved from or if they moved at all. If the players don't agree what the starting positions were then the finish positions are often meaningless. On many shots there is the issue of double hits too. Sometimes there is no way in the world for somebody looking afterwards to be able to tell if the ball was thinned or whiffed on the cue ball's path to the rail when the object ball was hit solidly coming off the rail.
Hu
The catch is that to judge by the position of the balls the players have to agree where the balls moved from or if they moved at all. If the players don't agree what the starting positions were then the finish positions are often meaningless. On many shots there is the issue of double hits too. Sometimes there is no way in the world for somebody looking afterwards to be able to tell if the ball was thinned or whiffed on the cue ball's path to the rail when the object ball was hit solidly coming off the rail.
Hu
the diagram doesn't match Bill's own description
Neil according to Bill's report and the arrow from the eight ball the eight ball was on the opposite side of the cue ball's path. With things diagrammed this inaccurately there is nothing to go by. I suspect it was a foul as Bill seems quite sure of it but with the positions seemingly so inaccurate in that diagram I can't say with any certainty that the other player didn't draw back into the eight ball after hitting the two. Bill says the balls were only one to two balls apart and the other player was jacked up. Could have been a lot of juice on the cue ball. Certainly was if the other player was trying to "gear in" the two.
Just playing devil's advocate here, the after the fact diagram seems to conflict with Bill's account and the other player's claims at the time. Looking at the diagram the cue ball didn't need to come within a half inch of the eight to pocket the two ball either. I don't mean to be hard on Allen but people put up diagrams and it seems they are automatically accepted as fact. I think that they are more like the diagrams everybody produces in traffic court, needing to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Hu
Neil according to Bill's report and the arrow from the eight ball the eight ball was on the opposite side of the cue ball's path. With things diagrammed this inaccurately there is nothing to go by. I suspect it was a foul as Bill seems quite sure of it but with the positions seemingly so inaccurate in that diagram I can't say with any certainty that the other player didn't draw back into the eight ball after hitting the two. Bill says the balls were only one to two balls apart and the other player was jacked up. Could have been a lot of juice on the cue ball. Certainly was if the other player was trying to "gear in" the two.
Just playing devil's advocate here, the after the fact diagram seems to conflict with Bill's account and the other player's claims at the time. Looking at the diagram the cue ball didn't need to come within a half inch of the eight to pocket the two ball either. I don't mean to be hard on Allen but people put up diagrams and it seems they are automatically accepted as fact. I think that they are more like the diagrams everybody produces in traffic court, needing to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Hu
Bill disproves an old theory. In his case, 2 ft= 1 yard! LOL
Neil,
What you are saying is correct assuming the positions are relatively correct. The masse effect will be pretty large if the player is jacked up hitting down on the ball as Bill described. I don't see the cue ball drawing back into the eight ball but I don't see it as impossible either hitting the two full in the face or actually just to the left of full to begin with thanks to a little masse. The seventy-five cent question is how close together were the two and eight actually and which way did the cue ball move? I suspect that Allen and everyone else on the rail was watching somewhat casually not expecting to need to make a call. Without being able to position the balls as they really were we don't know if the cue ball hit the eight first or spun off the two.
At Bill's worst case scenario for him, the eight ball was one ball away from the two ball. The cue ball fills up that one ball space meaning when contact was made with the two ball the back of the cue ball might have been dead even with the front of the eight, according to Bill who seems to have tried to be as fair as possible in his statements.
The cue ball is being hit with spin to bring it back into the eight at those close of quarters. Neither the two ball or the eight are in the same place they started as a guide to replicate positions closely. What happens to the forward momentum of a cue ball when it hits an object ball full in the face as described? Another good question is what path did the cue ball take after contact with both balls and where did it stop at?
Just food for thought. Odds are pretty good that the eight ball was indeed hit first. However, there is reasonable doubt concerning that also at the point I am at now. I worked hundreds of wrecks when I owned wreckers. Most of them you could look at the positions of the two vehicles and the crash debris and piece out what happened and who was at fault. I used to do it as a way to kill time until I was given the OK to move the car I was towing. Once in awhile however, all of the evidence was contradicted by both driver's matching stories.
I called an interesting shot awhile back, the object ball was hanging in the pocket, the possibly interfering ball was one ball back,(front of blocking ball even with back of object ball) and the space between the blocking ball and cushion meant that the shooter was going to have to hammer the cue ball into the rail a little bit to make the very lip of the cushion compress to make the shot without being a foul. He shot with stun and the necessary speed, made the object ball, and the blocking ball rolled out slowly at 90 degrees to the cushion. Good hit or bad?
Hu
...........
Last edited: