The Right Call?

Your thoughts? Should Shane have gotten credit for the game?


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
No way for me to know, not enough information. Was everyone else in this place and this event calling obvious ten balls? It would take a moron to not know what pocket Shane was shooting for but if calling the pocket was strictly enforced Shane screwed up. If it wasn't enforced for everyone else then it was "F" the foreigner time.

Hu
 
This shot/situation was discussed a lot here when it happened. As I recall, this was an event that was promoted or sponsored by Manny Pacquiao. The special rule in the tournament was that the 10 ball had to be explicitly called even if totally obvious. This is similar to the APA requirement that you "patch the pocket", or mark the intended pocket with some physical object.

If that's how they wanted to run their one-time tournament, the referee should have asked the player to indicate his pocket. The rules are not supposed to be a game of "Gotcha!!"

Here is a thread from when it happened. Biado also got fooled by the stupid officiating.

 
The ref was not a nit. The TD/organizer made a mistake by making up their own rules. The ref did what he had been told to do.
I think a warning would have sufficed, although most people I play with explicitly call ball the money ball, even if other shots are implied. If you sink the money ball without calling it, I assume it spots and the incoming player shoots the cue ball from where it came to rest?
 
Still think its a nitty deal. Nitty rules applied by poor refs paid(i guess) to enforce them.
 
I hate stupid rules like that. It assumes people are going to lie and cheat on a really blatant scale. Obviously some do, but I hate seeing it made so plain.
Under standard rules, I refuse to call straight in balls and find it odd how many people do it regularly.
 
Rules, Rules, Rules . . . was Alcano compelled to accept the win? Are referees supposed to intercede absent a request of a player? I always understood that referees functioned, essentially, in a laissez faire manner -- players governed their own games until they could not. Even if the referee was within his province, what was to stop Alcano from being a stand-up guy and saying "I heard him call the 10" or otherwise refusing to accept the ruling? Many folks that I grew up with would tell you that the definitive example of a nit is someone who exploits a technicality to win. * Rules are necessary and very important, but some things are more important than rules.
 
Last edited:
I read just a little of the old thread. Apparently Shane had not called the ten the first three games he won either. Had it been called on him the first game Shane would have probably not been upset. On those soft looking tables either player could have started a run to the finish from where they were at. At the least Shane could have unraveled Ronnie's lead and turned the tide of the match.

Just traveling around the Southeastern United States I have lost a lot of single games to local rules. I lost, I learned, I moved on. The language barrier, Shane's hearing, several things besides him just being careless could have had him fail to understand that special tournament rule in place. Been my experience that competitors tend to ignore oddball rules until they are burned by them anyway. I attended every competitors meeting at every event I went to. The rare times I legitimately couldn't make the meeting I sent somebody reliable to listen for just such quirks.

Shane ignored a rule. That was at his peril and ignorance is no excuse. On the other hand if what he did was fine the first three wins I might have unscrewed too.

Even with more information I can easily see both sides of this issue. I call the pocket every time on the money ball, usually just by pointing. Sometimes if the other player isn't paying attention I make sure they hear a call.

Shane has to take some responsibility for not knowing or paying attention to the rule. On the other hand if he didn't call it three times before with no problem and then when things start getting interesting a call is made it does smack of BS.

Hu
 
As usual, Hu is dead on.
Prior dealings, or a course of conduct, has been cited for hundreds of years as providing controlling precedent in determining the intent of parties to later transactions. Further, silence can often be deemed as communicating consent.
 
Interesting to see what E-1 thinks about this.
I had a few instance in my pool life where this has happened. TBH, I would have dome the same thing. At first, I thought the REF was being a nit, BUT if you watch at the 1 minute mark, Alcano gets up and gestures. The REF reacts. I don't know if call pocket was in the rules, usually is in 10 ball ,but when it's obvious......
The timing is a bit "fishy" too having SVB down 5-3 . the loss puts Alcano to 6 in a race to 9. hmmmmm 🤔
Thanks for the input, Bob. (y)
 
.... I don't know if call pocket was in the rules, usually is in 10 ball ,but when it's obvious......
Up to the 10 ball, obvious shots didn't have to be called. But the 10 ball had to be clearly indicated to the ref. Even if the 10 was sitting over the pocket so that it literally could not be made in any other pocket, it had to be explicitly called. Biado and Efren were also stung by the rule, so it is clear that the officials failed to warn the players sufficiently.
 
Back
Top