The Verdict Is In, Gary Lutman Banned For 1 Year

[iusedtoberich]

that still doesn't answer my question.

1. from what i've read so far,Evelyn was brought over was to relocate the moved ball to it's "original" position.
2. it seems that "Gary continues to argue..." because she already made her ruling against him.
3. awards opponent with BIH.


It's water under the bridge but something is missing here.

What's missing is a moved ball coming into or close to the path of another ball is a foul.

This whole argument by everyone that the crux of discrepencies is "the tie goes to the runner". While I agree with this on the case of a split hit, or did a ball get to a rail, etc...

In THIS case I disagree. In THIS case, the shooting player commited a non-disputable error by moving a ball. That changes who the "runner" is when using the general rule "the tie goes to the runner". This makes the "runner" the non-shooter. Thus in this case, the foul should be called.

This is my opinion. I'm not a referee, but its how I feel about this particular shot situation. I read about half of the original thread, and this entire thread, and didn't see anyone with an opinion like this.

 

[John Brumback]

What's missing is a moved ball coming into or close to the path of another ball is a foul.

This whole argument by everyone that the crux of discrepencies is "the tie goes to the runner". While I agree with this on the case of a split hit, or did a ball get to a rail, etc...

In THIS case I disagree. In THIS case, the shooting player commited a non-disputable error by moving a ball. That changes who the "runner" is when using the general rule "the tie goes to the runner". This makes the "runner" the non-shooter. Thus in this case, the foul should be called.

This is my opinion. I'm not a referee, but its how I feel about this particular shot situation. I read about half of the original thread, and this entire thread, and didn't see anyone with an opinion like this.

I agree with you on this too.I didn't read It close enough. I like this ruling you have described. One thing though,what is close? Maybe within a foot so there cannot be any arguing at all? You might get this ole rule nailed down once and for all.And I still like Gary L.LOL John B.

 

[jay helfert]

WHAT, No jail time? :groucho:

 

[justadub]

I have no bone in this............................
If what Gary said was so wrong, how come Earl S can still play in all the events.

A ref on each table would go along ways in stopping alot of these problems.

I know using Earl as a example may not have been my best choice.
But he seems to have his momments alot.

Best regards to everyone caught up in this.
MMike

It's not a good example.

Earl is what, a 9-time US Open champion? (Whatever the number, it's large.)

Considered to be one of the best players, ever.

Does that justify how he acts, nope. Not a bit. But it explains why he is allowed more chances than other people who act similarly. Alas, that's the way the world works, at times....

Count me among those who think the apology is very good, and a good first step towards reconciliation. Very stand up, to so this out in public, for all to see.

 

[poolfire]

6 inches

I agree with you on this too.I didn't read It close enough. I like this ruling you have described. One thing though,what is close? Maybe within a foot so there cannot be any arguing at all? You might get this ole rule nailed down once and for all.And I still like Gary L.LOL John B.

i think the measurement was 6 inches....