Sigel blows it in IPT commentary!

[Scott Lee]

Sigel made a major error in his commentary. In the second match, between Gabe Owen and Shawn Putnam, they're both hill-hill (7-7), with Putnam breaking. Putnam almost scratches on the break, and Sigel comments that if he HAD scratched, he would have lost the game automatically. Now, he MAY have meant that the other player would likely run out (and that's probably true), but the average person watching would not understand that, and would be thinking, "Oh, if you scratch on the break, you lose!" That's a shame, because there are already WAY too many people that believe that's a real rule. I get that question in almost every exhibition that I do. Geez Sigel...what a gaff!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[JoeyInCali]

The Mouth said AUTOMATICALLY lost had he scratched.
WTH was that?
Good catch Scott.
Another pro rule's gonna make it to my local bar. LOL

 

[smittie1984]

The Mouth said AUTOMATICALLY lost had he scratched.
WTH was that?
Good catch Scott.
Another pro rule's gonna make it to my local bar. LOL

I saw that too. I think he meant the other player would likely run out. But there seems to be a lot of confusion among the IPT players about some of the rules.

The other night at my pool hall Johnny Archer, Stevie Moore, and Helena Thornfeldt where confused as to wether a scratch is ball in hand or behind the line on the break.

Good catch.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

The last time that I checked a scratch on the break was ball in hand anywhere on the table under the IPT rules thus differing it from BCA/WPA international rules.

 

[TannerPruess]

Yes it is anywhere. Allison Fisher scratched in the side on the break and gave Bustamante BIH. He put the cue ball near the rack area to shoot a combo, but he move the cue ball with his stick to position resulting in BIH for Allison. Allison missed the combo.

 

[Blue_Suede]

He put the cue ball near the rack area to shoot a combo, but he move the cue ball with his stick to position resulting in BIH for Allison.

I know that feeling... That's a tough one to deal with. But rules are rules...

If I was creating a set of rules, I can't think why moving the CB with your cue should constitute a foul. It's such a force of habit for players, and, as long as you don't interfere with any other ball, then why should it be a foul?

Opinions please.

BS

 

[sjm]

The real problem with the commnentary is that it would have reasonable if Mike's audience consisted entirely of serious pool players. To the serious player, it's obvious what he meant.

Still, the IPT claims not to be targeting serious pool players in positioning its TV product. That makes Sigel's mistake unforgivable.

For the causally interested viewer, they probably feel the way I did when I watched curling during the Olympics. It's really frustrating when you think you know the rules but then it seems you really don't. I recall the humbling experience of going on to a curling website to try to learn the rules and strategy, and when the IPT telecast suggested going to their website to learn more, I was fairly amused.

If the IPT slogan is "real pool, real rules, real money," they best evolve past glaringly obvious misstatements of the rules.

Let's give them a free pass on this occasion, but the IPT needs to avoid this kind of mistake.

 

[tjlmbklr]

Sigel made a major error in his commentary. In the second match, between Gabe Owen and Shawn Putnam, they're both hill-hill (7-7), with Putnam breaking. Putnam almost scratches on the break, and Sigel comments that if he HAD scratched, he would have lost the game automatically. Now, he MAY have meant that the other player would likely run out (and that's probably true), but the average person watching would not understand that, and would be thinking, "Oh, if you scratch on the break, you lose!" That's a shame, because there are already WAY too many people that believe that's a real rule. I get that question in almost every exhibition that I do. Geez Sigel...what a gaff!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Yah, I can just see it know some dumbass at the bar is going to call me out on that; nice going Mike...lol

 

[MVPCues]

I know that feeling... That's a tough one to deal with. But rules are rules...

If I was creating a set of rules, I can't think why moving the CB with your cue should constitute a foul. It's such a force of habit for players, and, as long as you don't interfere with any other ball, then why should it be a foul?

Opinions please.

BS

I think most agree with you, but there is a reason for the rule. I have placed the cueball with ball in hand, I then get down in my stance and I start a practice stroke and barely touch the cueball. Who is to say I did not do it on purpose to reposition it? We have all had ball in hand, placed whitey, got down, put our bridge hand on the cloth, and oops, the cloth being a little loose or what not the cueball actually moves a tad, so what the heck, you just reach up with your tip to move it back...

You could make the rule you can't move it once your in your stance, but then someone will argue they weren't in their stance... Yes, it is obvious when someone is repositioning it, but it is a subjective call, hence the rule.

I personally would not make it a rule, but I understand the reason.
Kelly

 

[Blue_Suede]

Aye, but isn't there some way of differenciating between the two situations? Say... the player calling that he/she is ready to play the shot?

I dunno the answer to this. I only know that, for me, and I'm sure a lot of players, positioning the CB with the cue is second-nature.

Maybe a new rule should be introduced? (As if we need another one)!

BS

 

[Blue_Suede]

Regarding Mike Segal's 'faux pas'... nobody's perfect. I'm sure that Mike (a pool player and not an AZ post-mortum-ist) meant nothing more than than what he said. Just that. A scratch would have meant loss of game. Not rules-wise, but an inevitable run-out by the oncoming player.

Let's not get too worked up about Mike's commentry. Why not be glad that someone of his knowledge & skill is available to provide experienced comment?

Leave the explanation of the rules to the pre-game hacks. If that doesn't work then what chance have we got? I'm sure it took a few tours for the public at large to understand the rules of golf. No?

C'mon people. Embrace the situation. What imperfection is there with the IPT that you would put right? Think about it.

It's a hard job. Especially dealing with dissillusioned players who've heard it all before.

Wait until July 23rd. Then let's see what happens.

x

BS

 

[smittie1984]

I think you should be able to move the cueball with the ferral of your cue. But not the tip. That way the players can still do the cue stick move but you have a defined set of rules so no one can try to take advantage of hitting the cue ball by accident. Then claiming they were moving it.

 

[alstl]

The thing I don't understand is why he keeps badmouthing the women. Are they trying to alienate potentially a large portion of the audience, and if so, why?

 

[Blue_Suede]

I think you should be able to move the cueball with the ferral of your cue. But not the tip.

That's a GOOD idea! Especially as most players will move the CB with the wooden part of their cue.

The rule could be: "As soon as the tip (ie. the part of the cue past the ferral) makes contact with the CB, the shot has been played.

How does that sound?

BS

 

[Subsonic2u]

Mike The Mouth

This is all part of y they call him "Mike the Mouth." Open mouth, insert foot. Engage the mouth before putting the brain in gear. He knows how to shoot pool, but not how to keep his mouth shut. Hope he likes it when the women beat him.

 

[Hal]

I think you should be able to move the cueball with the ferral of your cue. But not the tip. That way the players can still do the cue stick move but you have a defined set of rules so no one can try to take advantage of hitting the cue ball by accident. Then claiming they were moving it.

Suppose you have ball in hand and stumble as your getting into your stance and miscue horribly hitting the cueball with the ferrule and shaft? Do you get to shoot again? I think not.

 

[Da Poet]

That's a GOOD idea! Especially as most players will move the CB with the wooden part of their cue.

The rule could be: "As soon as the tip (ie. the part of the cue past the ferral) makes contact with the CB, the shot has been played.

How does that sound?

BS

I think this is basically the BCA rule. It seems that allowing players in the IPT to adjust the cue the way you describe would save time and ultimately make more room for commercials!

Call it a hunch, but I think it will change.

 

[poolhall maven]

The thing I don't understand is why he keeps badmouthing the women. Are they trying to alienate potentially a large portion of the audience, and if so, why?

It's probably true that the ladies do not have as strong a break, therefore they were not able to win as many games--I'm not sure if it was bad mouthing but, he was really bugging me by calling the best women players in the world girls--he didn't call the men boys...I felt like he was demeaning the very best women players in the world --it is politcally incorrect and definitely old school. I can see why they call him the mouth... but, he used to be known as Captain Hook.
I don't want to say any more unpleasant things because any pool on tv is good for our sport and thank you to Kevin Trudeau.
PHM

 

[sjm]

I watched this for the first time on OLN with my husband and he thought Sigel's commentary was totaly ridiculous. "Girls"?? He calls Allison and Karen "Girls"??

Barbara

I sense that the male chauvinism is part of how the product is being positioned. This sets up the ladies to be big stories when they win, which, I suspect, is just the way the IPT wants it. Also, inter-gender grudge matches would be good for business, and the IPT knows it.

Still, the one thing that doesn't seem to add up is that Kevin Trudeau, who says nearly nothing when holding the microphone, when refelcting on Allison Fisher's elimination, commented that "she was one of the favorites."

I'm inclined to take the male chauvinism with a grain of salt, Barbara.

 

[Rich R.]

The thing I don't understand is why he keeps badmouthing the women. Are they trying to alienate potentially a large portion of the audience, and if so, why?

I thought Mike was way out of line with his comments about the lady players. He comes off as a real jerk.

He continuously said that Gerda was not the caliber of Karen and Allison, as she beat Earl.

Now that Mike is no longer King of the Hill, I assume he will be playing in the IPT tournaments. I look forward to the day he draws Gerda, Karen and Allison, and they all beat him.