i guess they shouldnt let efren kick at balls anymore either...i mean cmon...he has too much knowledge and that is the other players faults for not working and learning how to do it also.
Should Corey be punished in RENO for being smart.
- Thread starter SUPERSTAR
- Start date
I agree with you about spotting the 9-ball, but only if it goes in one of the lower corner pockets. It should be allowed if it gets kicked in the sides, or one of the top corners. Racking at random really doesn't affect the outcome so much as placing the 2 at the bottom of the rack. This helps keep the 1 and 2 the greatest distance apart, usually. On another note, should we be forced to keep playing 9-ball, I think a change in rules is in order.hilla_hilla said:
I would take away safety play and of course the three foul rule. (To me, safety play does not belong in rotation based games. Let the shooters shoot! Good for 14.1 and one-pocket, bad for rotation). After the opening break and a ball is legally pocketed, each time a player misses, the incoming player gets ball in hand.
There is just too much luck to this game. And when a good player gets the rolls, it can quickly get one-sided and that is just boring. With ball in hand and no safeties, at least you get a chance to shoot you way out and the matches move much quicker.
How many times have you seen someone get a wide open table, run 5,6,7,8 balls get out of line and then play safe? Nothing's worse than watching someone fumble only to punt and stick it to their opponent and then get another chance at it.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!Cameron Smith said:Of course Corey shouldn't be allowed to take luck out of the break!
And, Tennis players should be forced to underhand serve, it's too damn fast!
Slap shots in hockey should be illegal, see above.
Curve balls in baseball should be barred, it's the devils throw!
Golfers should always use the driver off the tee, irons are boring.
Slam Dunks in Basketball shouldn't be allowed, not everyone can reach you know!
Actually, I just had an idea, playing position on any shot should be illegal in pool. Any shot that isn't played centre ball and really hard should be a foul.
Tyson shouldnt have been able to use both hands
The Great One should have only been able to use one skate
And like I said befor, Jordan should have been kicked out of the NBA all together..
It must be totaly unfair for him to soft break like that because he wins every match and tourney he plays in.. How did that soft break work for him against SVB...He must of had to get a new house for all those US open trophys hes got...Boy hes really got the upper hand I better start woking on a soft break.
Why is sharking allowed? Moore should have been penalized a game or 2 for running his mouth. Asking for a ref to rack is fine but whinning and complaing about the way Duel breaks when it is allowed is sharking and most certainly done on purpose. Very low move of Moore .
I was there and saw the whole match in person. Here's my take.SUPERSTAR said:
Corey was leading in the match and had been having success with the soft break, making a ball in the same bottom corner, and with nice position on the one ball every time. At one point after Corey finished racking, Stevie requested a neutral racker. Corey did not want another racker (Scott Smith was not even around at the time) and told Stevie there were no problems with his rack and if Stevie could show him a problem with it then he would be fine with a neutral racker. Stevie repeatedly claimed that there was a 1/4" gap between two of the balls, and Corey repeatedly claimed that there was no gap. Stevie's only complaint was about the tightness of the rack, nothing about rack placement or ball arrangement.
One of the tournament personnel came over (not Scott Smith) and inspected the rack closely and said that the rack looked good to him. He told Stevie that he was not going to be able to give a rack any better than the one in question, and it seemed to me that he was a bit annoyed with Stevie's request. Stevie still insisted on the neutral racker. Corey was clearly irritated about the whole thing.
The racks from this gentleman took rediculously long, like 4-6 minutes each time I would guess, and this started to irritate Corey even more. The racks from this guy were also not as tight as Corey's in his opinion either, so he was irritated about that too. This guy racked a few games, then Scott Smith came back and racked most of the rest of the match.
IMO it was clear that Corey was sharked by the entire incident and it affected his play. The only real question is whether or not it was done intentionally. All appearances are that Stevie was making something out of nothing, especially after the racker confirmed that Corey had given a good rack, but without having inspected any of the racks myself there is no way for me to say for sure.
Poolplaya9 said:
this also implies that since it took the first neutral racker longer periods of time to get a tight rack, that there is a possiblilty that there were gaps in coreys rack and he just let them be....whether to his advantage or not...only he and stevie know. jmo.
Last edited:
Ironman317 said:
Or that Corey is just a better racker. If someone else inspected Corey's rack and they were tight then that should be that.
I can understand why a ref called in to rack in the middle of a dispute would be nervous and prone to taking too long to get the rack right.
Well, all other considerations aside, it sounds as if Stevie Moore just out moved Corey Duel in this one.
His taking long periods of time could imply several things, and one of those could certainly be that it was a tough table to get a good rack on. While it may not have been the easiest table to get a good rack on, I didn't see anybody from any other matches on that table (nor Stevie or Corey) having the same significant problems with it either. In any case, there is no reason it should take that long to rack each and every time.Ironman317 said:
As far as Corey allowing gaps in his racks, that is also possible, but the neutral racker had inspected the rack and thought it was a good rack too. While there isn't a way for anybody to ever know for sure, it seems to make Corey's claim that the complaint was unjustified the more likely of the possibilies.
By the way, Corey had also offered to let the tournament director just tap the balls into place so that they both had the same perfect rack every time, but Stevie didn't want to do that either.
These racking wars are going to continue in the wonderful world of pocket billiards. Where there's a will, there's a way, as they say!
The only solution to the problem is, of course, to have a neutral racker, but most tournaments -- the average tournament in these United States, for example -- cannot afford to have "neutral rackers" for all matches. It just does not make economic sense.
At the players meeting of the Allen Hopkins' Skin Billiards Championship, the competitors were informed that there would be a neutral racker. NOBODY was allowed to question the rack or ask for a re-rack. Whatever that neutral racker racked, that's the way it was going to be.
Again, bowlers don't rack their own pins. I am pretty sure if they did, there'd be a lot more strikes in bowling tournaments than there are today. Though this scenario has a mechanical racker, the theory still holds true.
Maybe somebody needs to come up with a mechanical racker, like they do in bowling! :thumbup:
Rigging racks is the same thing as playing poker with a marked deck of cards. It is blatant cheating. Why others cannot see this is beyond me.
Breaking, on the other hand, is skill. If a player can figure out how to break to favor the equipment, then this player is utilizing their knowledge/wisdom and applying a strategy to their game, and there is nothing wrong with that. :smile:
Rigging racks is cheating. Breaking strategies, on the other hand, is a good thing for all players to have.
The more diversified a player, the better he/she is able to adapt to all equipment. I've seen one high-profile champion play phenomenally on a GC, but get him on an Olhausen, and he gets the deer-in-headlights look as he can only hit balls in the rail, poor fellow. It was quite embarassing for him, for more reasons than not, but that is the topic for another thread.
The only solution to the problem is, of course, to have a neutral racker, but most tournaments -- the average tournament in these United States, for example -- cannot afford to have "neutral rackers" for all matches. It just does not make economic sense.
At the players meeting of the Allen Hopkins' Skin Billiards Championship, the competitors were informed that there would be a neutral racker. NOBODY was allowed to question the rack or ask for a re-rack. Whatever that neutral racker racked, that's the way it was going to be.
Again, bowlers don't rack their own pins. I am pretty sure if they did, there'd be a lot more strikes in bowling tournaments than there are today. Though this scenario has a mechanical racker, the theory still holds true.
Maybe somebody needs to come up with a mechanical racker, like they do in bowling! :thumbup:
Rigging racks is the same thing as playing poker with a marked deck of cards. It is blatant cheating. Why others cannot see this is beyond me.
Breaking, on the other hand, is skill. If a player can figure out how to break to favor the equipment, then this player is utilizing their knowledge/wisdom and applying a strategy to their game, and there is nothing wrong with that. :smile:
Rigging racks is cheating. Breaking strategies, on the other hand, is a good thing for all players to have.
The more diversified a player, the better he/she is able to adapt to all equipment. I've seen one high-profile champion play phenomenally on a GC, but get him on an Olhausen, and he gets the deer-in-headlights look as he can only hit balls in the rail, poor fellow. It was quite embarassing for him, for more reasons than not, but that is the topic for another thread.
After the neutral racker and Scott Smith started racking the balls, did Corey's break function the same way? If not I would have tolean more towards something fishy with Corey's rack and it really not being as tight as one from a neutral party. When inspected, the official could have missed something in Corey's rack.Poolplaya9 said:
I'm not trying to blame either pro, but both of these guys have been around the game long enough to know how a 9ball rack reacts when broken. If Corey has figured something out then good for him, he always seems to do that, but Im sure Stevie's reason for getting a neutral racker was legitimate.
The way I see it, if the break only works when Corey racks the balls, then there is a problem with the way he is racking. If his break still worked once the neutral racker came in then there was no problem.
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
That is an absolutely astonishing amount of time and very hard to believe that could be anywhere near right. Are you sure?
Try putting a watch on the table and time yourself racking, even with repeated attempts and corrections and see how long 5 minutes really is.
Even one and a half minutes seems like an eternity
JAM said:
EXACTLY - except in bowling you can ask that the pins be reset if you feel they are not placed properly and you would see a lot more strikes if the bowlers could oil the lanes themselves, not really where the pins are setup. Also, in bowling the opponent can never say that he doesn't like the way the pins are setup and ask for a reset. Only in pool is the opponent allowed to stop the other player and shark him.
If a "soft break" is allowed by the rules, the opposing player has no right to complain about the soft break.
HOWEVER: There are times when the (non-breaker) has a right to complain about his opponent's racking, IMO.
Four legitimate complaints that come to mind are:
1. If balls are being racked in a particular order.
2. If the racker is tilting the rack to enhance their chances of pocketing a particular ball.
3. If the racker is pounding the balls into the cloth to get particular ball reactions on the break.
4. Arranging the racking balls (positioning the balls in such a manner) that a consistent reaction occurs each and every time.
In these cases, I see no problem with getting an impartial racker to rack but before a new racker is put in place, the tournament director should observe the original racking to determine if any of the three complaints are valid. If he determines that the original racker is not doing any of the three above, a penalty should be assigned to the complaining player, probably a one game loss.
My $.02.
JoeyA
HOWEVER: There are times when the (non-breaker) has a right to complain about his opponent's racking, IMO.
Four legitimate complaints that come to mind are:
1. If balls are being racked in a particular order.
2. If the racker is tilting the rack to enhance their chances of pocketing a particular ball.
3. If the racker is pounding the balls into the cloth to get particular ball reactions on the break.
4. Arranging the racking balls (positioning the balls in such a manner) that a consistent reaction occurs each and every time.
In these cases, I see no problem with getting an impartial racker to rack but before a new racker is put in place, the tournament director should observe the original racking to determine if any of the three complaints are valid. If he determines that the original racker is not doing any of the three above, a penalty should be assigned to the complaining player, probably a one game loss.
My $.02.
JoeyA
Joey,
With all due respect, very few TDs or Refs are qualified to tell if a rack is being RIGGED. At the most, a TD or Ref would be able to guess if the balls are being place in a specific order over a number of racks. And the penalty is just a re-rack. NO FOUL. These rules are specific.
If a player calls for a Ref or the TD to make a call, the player can only be given a warning (unsportsmanlike conduct) for 'delay of game' by requesting multiple 'uncalled for' visits to the table, for the first offense is a warning, second offense is loss of game/match and 3rd offense can be a Disqualification from the tournament..
It is too bad that someone hasn't replied to this post stating exactly what was said by Cory's opponent to the TD/Ref about the rack or soft break.
I would suspect that the opponent complained about the rack rigging. Same balls in the same place each rack. That is against the rules and a re-rack is done.
With all due respect, very few TDs or Refs are qualified to tell if a rack is being RIGGED. At the most, a TD or Ref would be able to guess if the balls are being place in a specific order over a number of racks. And the penalty is just a re-rack. NO FOUL. These rules are specific.
If a player calls for a Ref or the TD to make a call, the player can only be given a warning (unsportsmanlike conduct) for 'delay of game' by requesting multiple 'uncalled for' visits to the table, for the first offense is a warning, second offense is loss of game/match and 3rd offense can be a Disqualification from the tournament..
It is too bad that someone hasn't replied to this post stating exactly what was said by Cory's opponent to the TD/Ref about the rack or soft break.
I would suspect that the opponent complained about the rack rigging. Same balls in the same place each rack. That is against the rules and a re-rack is done.
JoeyA said:
memikey said:That is an absolutely astonishing amount of time and very hard to believe that could be anywhere near right. Are you sure?
Try putting a watch on the table and time yourself racking, even with repeated attempts and corrections and see how long 5 minutes really is.
Even one and a half minutes seems like an eternity
No that's right.
That's what Corey said.
"It took the ref forever to rack"
Poolfiend said:
You know it, i hate to say it but, SARDO is one of the reasons the modern day big tournament soft break that he has even evolved.
I'm pretty sure he used it before, but the modern day soft break made it's big tournament debut at the 2001 BCA tournament in Vegas.
Since the SARDO was being used, that meant that the wing ball would fly in every time. SO, at the BCA, they opted to rack the 9 on the spot instead of the 1 on the spot to take the guaranteed wing ball going in every time away from everyone.
It was COREY who figured out the soft break and how to hit them to make balls practicing on the tables the night before the tournament began.
He was the ONLY one who figured it out.
Anyone else who tried jumped on the bandwagon, but didn't have nearly as much success as he did.
AND, that was the year that he WON the tournament in what would be his breakout year.
I can't remember how many other tournaments fiddled with which ball went on the spot.
He's always been interested in where each ball went.
He's been looking at that since he was a kid.
AND, there is no one else on tour who uses the soft break as much, or as effectively as he does.
SARDO started his mainstream exposure of the soft break.
I think if you're going to complain about someone elses break, then you should only enter 10-ball tournaments, where the rack is not manipulated as easily as a 9-ball rack. Corey should not be punished for his superior knowledge in this area.
IMO this is right up there with jump cues. If it's within the rules then why shouldn't you use them. If you don't like it, then don't enter tourneys where they're allowed.
Mr H
IMO this is right up there with jump cues. If it's within the rules then why shouldn't you use them. If you don't like it, then don't enter tourneys where they're allowed.
Mr H
