So is this a “shark attack” or not? Explain why or why not.

[alstl]

The balls were not frozen.

It was a shark move.

 

[JolietJames]

Low class shark. Total BS. Someone should have kicked Archer in the balls after this match.

 

[Jeff M]

Of course he sharked him. I would of told Johnny the same thing he told Earl before. "When it's your shot you can talk. When it's my shot you shut your mouth."

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Whether it was sharking or not is irrelivant. The match is over and the results are history. In the end there's a winner and a loser. Those who look for reasons to discredit a victory will focus on any issue to support their cause. Unfortunately, many issues fall in the "Gray Area".

Would he have made the shot had Johnny kept his mouth shut???....Nobody knows, but one one thing is sure....Pool is a MENTAL game and if you cannot overcome a small distraction, there is a part of your game that is lacking. It's no different than having a flaw in your stroke. Distractions are a part of the game!

Do you think Johnny would have missed that shot had the shoe been on the other foot? Probably not.

Televised matches are only a small fraction of the games these top players compete. You can bet that when the camera is off, there are many subtle "head games" going on to gain an edge. It's simply a part of the game.

Johnny's response to the situation may have been completely subconscious and a result of behavior characteristic to the state of competition often apparent when the camera is off.

I've seen refs make bad calls and Johnny's opponent was approaching the shot in a way that lent itself to a foul. In addition, to stay out of the shooters line of sight, the ref was forced to stand a little too far away to really see if a foul occured given the fact the cue ball was almost touching the OB. I think Johnny may have been concerned that the ref was not "on the ball" per say and unwilling to let his fate be determined by an unattentive ref.

Hence, he simply confirmed the rule with the ref to be certain. To make sure the ref was paying extra close attention.

Was it sharking......depends on your perspective.
Where do we draw the line between acceptable and reasonable inquiries and those that are not.

If I bring the situation to the refs attention and lose the game...who do I blame? Myself. I lost on my own merrit.

If I say nothing and let a ref standing 5 ft away, make the call only to find out in rebroadcast that the ref missed the foul.....Who do I blame? Myself for not bringing it to the refs attention.

Since the blame for a loss falls upon my shoulders in either situation...I'd much rater lose on my own merrit than on a bad call.

Go to 1:50 of the interview to hear Samm interviewing Johnny about the controversy. JA wanted to ask the referee what the double hit rule was before Ronnie was ready to shoot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IP2j4TChSo

When someone is about to shoot, that's not the time for the opponent to approaching the table asking questions about the rules.

In addition, if JA was concerned that the referee might not see the shot or call the foul, Johnny could have said that during the interview with Samm. Instead, the only explanation that JA mentioned was that he wanted to know what the double hit rule was, which is hard to believe given the many years that JA has been playing.

Whether intentional or not, it was sharking. The bogus explanation that JA gave only added to the controversy.

 

[JoeyA]

Recently in BCA nationals at Riviera, I ran into Stephano pellinga. He was at Tiger Booth doing demonstrations. He did show me how to do that shot without causing a fowl hit.

The only way to guarantee this is to make sure that no feathers are being used.

 

[TATE]

Ronnie has been in town for the past couple of weeks. Maybe I will ask him about this to see if he has changed his mind about this being a shark.

I've watched Ronnie play many times and he is as shark proof as you can get. I'm not saying he is an angel or not. I'm just saying he is "seasoned" and can block distractions as well as anyone but sharking gets to EVERYONE, mostly at the worst of times and this was no different.

Sharking, whether intentional or not is EFFECTIVE even against the BEST.

I still don't understand the rules about this myself. Personally I always shoot away from the ball no matter how close. I guess you can shoot through the ball sometimes, depending on rules, referees, local customs. (I don't think it should be allowed myself because it's too difficult to tell if a foul was committed, but some rules allow it).

I really think Johnny wanted to know if the refereee was going to allow the shoot-through shot, which may or may not be a foul. Shooting away in most cases is a lot harder to aim - like in the case Ronnie did, he threw the ball too much.

Anyway, whatever the case, it was obvious that Ronnie let this distraction get to him - he had all the time he wanted to compose himself and he has nobody but himself to blame for missing the shape then missing the shot.