Btw Mike, did DiToro say what the Final ruling was in their case ? Doug
Question for the tourney directors out there
- Thread starter azhousepro
- Start date
T
texasexpress
Guest
Per Texas Express Rules:
Section 7: Loss of Game - Concession - Loss of Match
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1: Three Consecutive Fouls
Three fouls in a row by the same player in a single game results in a win for his or her opponent. The opponent must warn the player when he or she has fouled twice, and the player must acknowledge the warning. If the opponent has not warned the player and received acknowledgement for the two fouls, and the player fouls a third time, then the player will begin his or her next inning in the same game with two fouls.
__________________________________________
AZHousepro asked in the original post "Questions for Tourney Directors out there"
Based on the fact that I am recognized as an "official" T.D.; and the fact that I and others within our group authored the T.E. 9 Ball Rules; and the fact that the event was played under either:
T.E. Rules, BCA Rules or Pro Express Rules ( whereby all 3 utilize the basic same 3 foul rule format ); I respectfully submit that the vast majority of those thus far who have posted and feel because player "B" continued play, etc. after the 3rd foul was made by player "A" that they "B" have given up the right for the right call .. are wrong .. simply do not understand the rule and/or are not tournament directors and/or that this rules can be snoozed in tournament play ( IT CAN NOT )!!!
As stated in rules above ... there is NO requirement for the 3rd foul to be acknowledged peroid .. It is an AUTOMATIC win when the player makes the 3rd foul !!! regardless of what transpired on the table thereafter !!!
As described in the original match description .. it sounds if player "A" was on the "stall" attempting to make a good hit to avoid the 3rd foul .. then due to his lack of sportsmanship or CON ... tried to get the win ... ( he knew he had LOST )
Again .. as in my first post .. the T.D. would have the right and duty to correct the match by "any means necessary" which would include investigation into any audience observance; of other players; of the players involved and make the final determination .. and by the way .. player "A" hung himself when he ( as described in original post ) acknowledged that he was on "2" ... meaning that he and his opponent "fully understood" that a 3rd foul would result in a loss...
Game over when 3rd foul happened .. period !!!
John McChesney
Texas Express
Section 7: Loss of Game - Concession - Loss of Match
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1: Three Consecutive Fouls
Three fouls in a row by the same player in a single game results in a win for his or her opponent. The opponent must warn the player when he or she has fouled twice, and the player must acknowledge the warning. If the opponent has not warned the player and received acknowledgement for the two fouls, and the player fouls a third time, then the player will begin his or her next inning in the same game with two fouls.
__________________________________________
AZHousepro asked in the original post "Questions for Tourney Directors out there"
Based on the fact that I am recognized as an "official" T.D.; and the fact that I and others within our group authored the T.E. 9 Ball Rules; and the fact that the event was played under either:
T.E. Rules, BCA Rules or Pro Express Rules ( whereby all 3 utilize the basic same 3 foul rule format ); I respectfully submit that the vast majority of those thus far who have posted and feel because player "B" continued play, etc. after the 3rd foul was made by player "A" that they "B" have given up the right for the right call .. are wrong .. simply do not understand the rule and/or are not tournament directors and/or that this rules can be snoozed in tournament play ( IT CAN NOT )!!!
As stated in rules above ... there is NO requirement for the 3rd foul to be acknowledged peroid .. It is an AUTOMATIC win when the player makes the 3rd foul !!! regardless of what transpired on the table thereafter !!!
As described in the original match description .. it sounds if player "A" was on the "stall" attempting to make a good hit to avoid the 3rd foul .. then due to his lack of sportsmanship or CON ... tried to get the win ... ( he knew he had LOST )
Again .. as in my first post .. the T.D. would have the right and duty to correct the match by "any means necessary" which would include investigation into any audience observance; of other players; of the players involved and make the final determination .. and by the way .. player "A" hung himself when he ( as described in original post ) acknowledged that he was on "2" ... meaning that he and his opponent "fully understood" that a 3rd foul would result in a loss...
Game over when 3rd foul happened .. period !!!
John McChesney
Texas Express
jjinfla said:
i think the one player knew the other made a foul,,,,that is why he cued for his turn. what i can't understand is how he forgot it was the third foul after notifying his opponent just a half a minute(or less) earlier.
maybe monica bellucci walked by the table. that would cause me to collapse.
bruin70 said:
Jake & bruin,
If you two would re-read the original post, you would see that player A was notified that he 'was on two fouls' and then commenced to 'study the shot' (re:stall) for 5 minutes before finally shooting. I think player A was 'shooting an angle' (stalling on porpoise) and it WORKED.... imo
M
MSB Promotions
Guest
John,
I agree with you that the TD can make the determination that Player B won after investigation with the audience, players in question and/or other players present. If a TD makes that determination, it is final.
If both players came to me and admitted to the fact that Player A was on TWO and fouled on the third attempt. I would call the game for Player B. If there was a credible witness that I could refer to, I would consider giving the game to Player B.
If I was in a he said-she said situation and Player A does not admit to the acknowledging being on two and I don't have a credible witness, then I can give the game to Player A. Especially, since Player B continued play.
Unfortunately, the original post does not disclose enough information to make a valid opinion. We don't know if Player A is disagreeing with the facts. We don't know if the spectator is credible. We don't know if anyone else witness the situation.
It's like two players playing a game. Player A shoots and contacts the four ball first, while the three ball is on the table. Player B never claims a foul and gets up and shoots the three ball then realizes that Player A didn't make a legal hit during his/her last inning. Player B can't now say, "Hey, you fouled in your last inning, I get ball in hand."
In the original post, Player B called a foul and took ball in hand and started to shoot again. Obviously, he forgot that Player A was on TWO. That is also demonstrated in the original post by the fact that an observer had to mention it to Player B after the match was done. Player B failed to call the game won.
Is Player A a scumbag for letting play continue? Sure. Can Player A be assessed an unsportsman like conduct penalty. Sure. But in the same respects, Player A could have honestly forgotten, just like Player B did. So maybe Player A is not a scumbag and should be assessed an unsportman like conduct penalty.
Like I said, the TD's final decision here could potentially go either way. This is one of those situations that falls into a GREY area.
I agree with you that the TD can make the determination that Player B won after investigation with the audience, players in question and/or other players present. If a TD makes that determination, it is final.
If both players came to me and admitted to the fact that Player A was on TWO and fouled on the third attempt. I would call the game for Player B. If there was a credible witness that I could refer to, I would consider giving the game to Player B.
If I was in a he said-she said situation and Player A does not admit to the acknowledging being on two and I don't have a credible witness, then I can give the game to Player A. Especially, since Player B continued play.
Unfortunately, the original post does not disclose enough information to make a valid opinion. We don't know if Player A is disagreeing with the facts. We don't know if the spectator is credible. We don't know if anyone else witness the situation.
It's like two players playing a game. Player A shoots and contacts the four ball first, while the three ball is on the table. Player B never claims a foul and gets up and shoots the three ball then realizes that Player A didn't make a legal hit during his/her last inning. Player B can't now say, "Hey, you fouled in your last inning, I get ball in hand."
In the original post, Player B called a foul and took ball in hand and started to shoot again. Obviously, he forgot that Player A was on TWO. That is also demonstrated in the original post by the fact that an observer had to mention it to Player B after the match was done. Player B failed to call the game won.
Is Player A a scumbag for letting play continue? Sure. Can Player A be assessed an unsportsman like conduct penalty. Sure. But in the same respects, Player A could have honestly forgotten, just like Player B did. So maybe Player A is not a scumbag and should be assessed an unsportman like conduct penalty.
Like I said, the TD's final decision here could potentially go either way. This is one of those situations that falls into a GREY area.
There's only a GRAY area if the TD doesn't have the balls to do what's RIGHT!!!!!
Like I said in my earlier post, it's losers at heart that try to pull stuff like this.
Steve
Like I said in my earlier post, it's losers at heart that try to pull stuff like this.
Steve
I
instroke
Guest
I would have made player B the winner. BUT in VNEA it is mandatory for the incoming player to ask if the shooting player committed a fould BEFORE picking up the cueball. I think that the asking rule/custom in the VNEA is what prevents situations like this.
I have always made sure to make the outgoing player acknowledge his fouls especially when they are on two. In this situation Player A acknowledged the foul by allowing Player B to take ball in hand - at that moment the game was over. If player A did not think he had committed a foul to lose on three then he should have protested the ball in hand taken by player B. As it was Player A should have extended his hand and said nice game at any time after he committed his third foul. He should not have accepted the win. Player A displayed tremendous unsportsmanlike conduct.
John
I have always made sure to make the outgoing player acknowledge his fouls especially when they are on two. In this situation Player A acknowledged the foul by allowing Player B to take ball in hand - at that moment the game was over. If player A did not think he had committed a foul to lose on three then he should have protested the ball in hand taken by player B. As it was Player A should have extended his hand and said nice game at any time after he committed his third foul. He should not have accepted the win. Player A displayed tremendous unsportsmanlike conduct.
John
Believe it or not, John had them replay the game and no matter who won, there was some split of however much prize money the winning player ended up taking from the tourney.
Mike
Mike
Smorgass Bored said:
T
texasexpress
Guest
Well .. in this circumstance .. John DiToro had them replay and some sort of split on the money per AZHousePro's last post.
I know John DiToro from having run events in Florida in the past on the Texas Express/McDermott Tour .. that he participated in and he is a very good player but I d not know of his T.D./rule interpretaion skills ..
He is the final decision maker of the event in question .. but I totally disagree with his ruling !!!
One can not read the rules and have any sort of misunderstanding as to the intent of the 3 foul rule.
Simply stated .. the reason for the 2 foul notification and acknowledgement is to have a full and complete understanding between the players .. "you're on 2 fouls" and "an acknowledgement" by the opponent is what was stated in the original post.
Simple ... another foul by player "A" .. and it was a loss of game/immediately .. and any action thereafter has absolutely no bearing on the outcome !!!!!!!!! There simply is NO REQUIREMENT to tell the player he just lost on the 3rd foul ... because he already has been warned (on 2) and KNEW IT !!!!!!
As I read the original post ... Not only did Player "A" know he was on 2 fouls .. but he used a stall tactic of about 5 minutes .. the question is: WHY ?
The game ended when he 3 fouled ..
Player "A" just tried to make a move .. and I guess in this case it worked ...
But had I been ( or dozens of other nationally known T.D. and am sure many local T.D. ) been running the event .. I would have investigated with the players/audience/other players and determined what was stated in the post: Player "A" knew he was on 2 .. and I would have made sure Player "B" won the game/match.
Then .. if Player "A" objected .. I would first have him read the rule ... and if he still objected .. would have put him on a 1st warning ( for future play ) of a flagrant unsportsmanlike foul.
There is no other legitimate ( per the rules ) outcome !!!
John McChesney
Texas Express
I know John DiToro from having run events in Florida in the past on the Texas Express/McDermott Tour .. that he participated in and he is a very good player but I d not know of his T.D./rule interpretaion skills ..
He is the final decision maker of the event in question .. but I totally disagree with his ruling !!!
One can not read the rules and have any sort of misunderstanding as to the intent of the 3 foul rule.
Simply stated .. the reason for the 2 foul notification and acknowledgement is to have a full and complete understanding between the players .. "you're on 2 fouls" and "an acknowledgement" by the opponent is what was stated in the original post.
Simple ... another foul by player "A" .. and it was a loss of game/immediately .. and any action thereafter has absolutely no bearing on the outcome !!!!!!!!! There simply is NO REQUIREMENT to tell the player he just lost on the 3rd foul ... because he already has been warned (on 2) and KNEW IT !!!!!!
As I read the original post ... Not only did Player "A" know he was on 2 fouls .. but he used a stall tactic of about 5 minutes .. the question is: WHY ?
The game ended when he 3 fouled ..
Player "A" just tried to make a move .. and I guess in this case it worked ...
But had I been ( or dozens of other nationally known T.D. and am sure many local T.D. ) been running the event .. I would have investigated with the players/audience/other players and determined what was stated in the post: Player "A" knew he was on 2 .. and I would have made sure Player "B" won the game/match.
Then .. if Player "A" objected .. I would first have him read the rule ... and if he still objected .. would have put him on a 1st warning ( for future play ) of a flagrant unsportsmanlike foul.
There is no other legitimate ( per the rules ) outcome !!!
John McChesney
Texas Express
AzHousePro said:
Ah-ha ! Great minds think alike.... <G> ... Doug
Like I said twice.....you have to have balls to do the right thing!!
Thats absolutely sickening what he did. He out and out let player A, screw player B.
Hope he has enough respect for himself to not run any more tournaments. That's just pitifull.
Steve
Thats absolutely sickening what he did. He out and out let player A, screw player B.
Hope he has enough respect for himself to not run any more tournaments. That's just pitifull.
Steve
M
marcswisher
Guest
I liken this to a game of poker, where the cards speak for themselves. The game ended when the guy three fouled, nothing should be able to change that, especially since the guy was warned that he was on two fouls.
Geesh who would forget that they had won AFTER they warned the guy of the foul situation? See ya on the table........Marc Swisher
Geesh who would forget that they had won AFTER they warned the guy of the foul situation? See ya on the table........Marc Swisher
M
Marv
Guest
Mike,
I posed a similar question here, (actually the old azbilliards) a couple of years ago. Player A is giving player B the 8 ball. Player B shoots and makes the 8, continues to shoot at the 9 ball and jaws it up. Player A says the game is not over because Player B continued shooting.
I say Player B loses in both cases.
I posed a similar question here, (actually the old azbilliards) a couple of years ago. Player A is giving player B the 8 ball. Player B shoots and makes the 8, continues to shoot at the 9 ball and jaws it up. Player A says the game is not over because Player B continued shooting.
I say Player B loses in both cases.
Tiger Woods needs a birdie from 26ft on the last hole at Augusta to win the Masters. Oh my god he drains it to win!!!!
Wait, what is he doing.....he picked his ball up and is walking to the 1st tee and smacks a ball down the middle of the fairway then walks up and chips onto the green.
A spectator stops him and says he already finished playing and won, but the officials decide since he didn't realize the tournament was over after he birded the 18th they add the 2 strokes he took after and say he lost by 1 stroke.
Then the scorecard he signs only has 18 holes on it so the officials determine he signed an incorrect scorecard and disqualify him.
The Moon is made of cheese and the Earth is flat, pigs fly and YOU CAN make a silk purse out of a cows ear.
Get real people........if this was the finals of the U.S.OPEN and it was hill-hill and this happened I suppose they would say.....................well golly gee guys, shucks, ummmm, just play it over I guess and split the money.
Steve Lomako (if it was me, player B WILL get the match and the money WON'T be split)
Wait, what is he doing.....he picked his ball up and is walking to the 1st tee and smacks a ball down the middle of the fairway then walks up and chips onto the green.
A spectator stops him and says he already finished playing and won, but the officials decide since he didn't realize the tournament was over after he birded the 18th they add the 2 strokes he took after and say he lost by 1 stroke.
Then the scorecard he signs only has 18 holes on it so the officials determine he signed an incorrect scorecard and disqualify him.
The Moon is made of cheese and the Earth is flat, pigs fly and YOU CAN make a silk purse out of a cows ear.
Get real people........if this was the finals of the U.S.OPEN and it was hill-hill and this happened I suppose they would say.....................well golly gee guys, shucks, ummmm, just play it over I guess and split the money.
Steve Lomako (if it was me, player B WILL get the match and the money WON'T be split)
As of this post:
22 votes
17 for player A
5 for player B...
I wonder how many TD's voted ? and how may voteded for player A?
If I were running a torunament and Player A reported a win, then Player B came up to me (later) and told me the senerio (about the 3 fouls on the case game) I would call player A back to ask if he had acknowledged the "You're on two fouls", if he replies "Yes" then I make changes and give player B the win and procede.
How can anyone vote for player A, knowing that this player has lost on 3 fouls in the case game?
22 votes
17 for player A
5 for player B...
I wonder how many TD's voted ? and how may voteded for player A?
If I were running a torunament and Player A reported a win, then Player B came up to me (later) and told me the senerio (about the 3 fouls on the case game) I would call player A back to ask if he had acknowledged the "You're on two fouls", if he replies "Yes" then I make changes and give player B the win and procede.
How can anyone vote for player A, knowing that this player has lost on 3 fouls in the case game?
I voted for B. (but only once and with no dangling chad)
M
Marv
Guest
Ooops!!!
Just read my own post. I meant to say Player B WINS in both cases.
Just read my own post. I meant to say Player B WINS in both cases.
It matters not what happened after the third foul. Once the game is over, it's over!AzHousePro said:
The questions I would pose instead of the one above is;
Why is a "Men's Pro Tour" still playing matches without referees?
and
Why don't the tournament officials of a "Men's Pro Tour" know the rules of engagement?
Last edited:
H
H. Danielson
Guest
The situation described and being discussed is one of those times when the Tournament Director, if he knows the rules, has a real easy decision. John McChesney and Ted Harris are absolutely correct. When the game is over, it is over. "B" wins and "A" has shown the world what a classless player he really is. By not making a decision and allowing the game to be replayed only encourages bad sportsmanship. Great point Ted...in a PRO event in this day and age, where are the referees? I actually was at a PRO event one time in the USA where the Tournament Director asked me for an opinion on a real straight forward call and he didn't even have a rule book to reference.
Harold Danielson
Tournament Director
Harold Danielson
Tournament Director