Should cueist's brand of cue refer by annotators?

Commentators should always stroke the egos, or plant seeds of doubt in the minds of gullible viewers, (depending on the cue make, weight, balance, number of inlays, amount of ivory, shaft type & taper, tip diameter, tip composition, tip shape, they own) by making an inanimate object the reason for success or failure on a pool table.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the best answer.


Slim Limpy said:
Here's my guess:
Pool commentating is run under the same economic format as any commentators are in any other sport:
They are employed/invited at the sole option of the events organizers/owners and as such are held accountable to the standards of the organizers/owners.
Why don't baseball commentators refer to the bat and glove manufacturers of ballplayers sometime during the progress of the game? Because the manufacturer of that particular player's equipment isn't paying a promotional fee for the commentators to do so. If a player made constant promo references to his own sponsorship deals during interviews after an event, his team management would change that attitude pretty quickly or his interview opportunities would dwindle pretty fast.
Fans may be interested in those details but the event's sponsors (unless it's their product) certainly aren't.
Click to expand...

That's the way it works for network television.

I don't know if the same rules apply to "live streaming" events, assumably the live stream is from a independent. If they can, then they should.

I would be interested in knowing what non-sponsored professionals play with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top