Thorston gives Ko Pin Yi a pass
- Thread starter kano
- Start date
I respectfully disagree with your comparison.
IMO, you're comparing skill and integrity; apples and oranges.
A situation in pool that would relate to yours in golf is more like a player gets shape in the next ball but misses the intended ball. The opposing player says "it's okay, you didn't intend on missing that so I will allow you to continue shooting".
Yes I've never won a game in any league due to someone not marking a pocket or something silly like that. I draw the line at tapping the cue ball by mistake. That probably makes me a sucker but I can't see trying to get over when someone swishes a shot. If it's good it's good.
I'm not on the expert debate list. Not trying to roast you either. I just believe in the spirit of the rule.
working under a different rule set myself
Neil,
Last I recall the rules said very specifically that all banks and combinations were not obvious shots and must be called. The rules this tournament was played under are considerably grayer even without the further fuzziness of the players meeting. I have to admit I like the old black and white rule better. I prefer to avoid shades of gray and vague rules whenever possible.
My post was also in error because I made a false assumption that they were playing under the rule I remembered.
Hu
Neil,
Last I recall the rules said very specifically that all banks and combinations were not obvious shots and must be called. The rules this tournament was played under are considerably grayer even without the further fuzziness of the players meeting. I have to admit I like the old black and white rule better. I prefer to avoid shades of gray and vague rules whenever possible.
My post was also in error because I made a false assumption that they were playing under the rule I remembered.
Hu
O.K., first off, I will state that I was unclear on the rules. Been a while since I read them.If a shot is not called, the opposing shooter has the option to take it or pass it back. This is what Thorsten did. No rule violation.
According to another poster, apparently in the players meeting, they agreed that they did not have to call obvious combos. That being the case, Thorsten had no choice but to pass this shot back as the ref had to call it. To do so otherwise would be very dishonorable. So, nothing against Thorsten at all, but no big deal that he passed it back. He had already agreed to do so.
My whole problem with this all, is that if one is playing by a set of rules, then they should play by that set of rules. If they don't like the rules, then play by a different set of rules. But, if in a tournament, you have a set you have to abide by. You don't go getting to change them as you go along. When you abide by the rules, then you have integrity. When you don't, you don't.
Now, as to this case, the rules state that you should call non-obvious shots, such as combos and banks. In this case, there was an agreement before the match, that if they felt it was obvious, even being a combo or bank, they would not have to call it.
If that agreement was not there, I feel there would be no loss of integrity on anyones part to take the shot after their opponent did not call it. That's part of the rules, and, especially at the pro level, you are responsible to know what rules you are playing by.
Someone else , I think Williebetmore, asked when golf would be brought up. I'll do it now. You have a golf tournament, you are required to turn in a correct score sheet, if you don't, you are disqualified. Not too long ago, in some big golf tourney, some one inadvertently turned in an incorrect score card. Their intent was to be totally honest. But, there was a wrong score on it. They were disqualified after getting well into the money.
Now, according to some on here, the rest of the golfers should have said, "no problem, we honor your score". That did not happen. The guy screwed up, and paid dearly for it. I'm sure not one other golfer thought, "hey, we know he wasn't trying to cheat, let him have the win." They knew what the rule was, and felt bad for the guy that inadvertently broke it. But, the rule stood.
So, my whole stance is, abide by the rules. In this case, Thorsten did. Both the written rules, and the rules they agreed to in the players meeting. While I feel that Thorsten is a very respectable player, I don't see where this particular call makes him an exception to others. All he did is keep his word.???
I agree. The real "rule" should have been "slop doesn't count"; then the obvious combo would not be a foul.
I don't think that is a requirement either way.
Not sure I agree with you here Neil. There are hundreds of examples over history in which someone followed "the rules" but clearly did not have integrity. For example, the Nazi who turned on the gas in a Concentration Camp was following the rules, but did not have integrity. Or the numerous examples of civil disobedience often for the cause of supporting the weak and powerless--again didn't follow the rules but did have integrity. These are extreme examples for sure, but I'm sure you see my point. Sometimes doing the right thing means violating the "rules". Remember the rules are an *attempt* made by *some* people to ensure that people will do right by the game in question. However, sometimes these rules are either the *wrong* choice by the organizers, or are not sufficiently defined to provide accurate guidance in a full variety of circumstances.
Within human psychology there is certainly a spectrum on which all people fall with regard to how *absolute* the "rules" are. Certain cultures are VERY strict about this, and others are not so much. You have stated fairly clearly that you tend to value "right" over "good", or rather that "right" makes "good". I disagree, although definitely acknowledge that often right and good can be the same thing. What would Jack Bauer do?
Food for thought,
KMRUNOUT
Last edited:
Well, I'm pretty disappointed that no post so far has indicated that anyone posting knows the actual rule. They've been in effect and on-line since January 2008.
The rules do not require the player to call combinations in call-shot games. If you think they do, you're wrong and you may want to read them. They are on the WPA website, www.wpa-pool.com -- try 1.6.
Evidently the referee didn't know the rules or how to play. It's hard to find good help, sometimes.
The rules do not require the player to call combinations in call-shot games. If you think they do, you're wrong and you may want to read them. They are on the WPA website, www.wpa-pool.com -- try 1.6.
Evidently the referee didn't know the rules or how to play. It's hard to find good help, sometimes.
The key word in the quoted section is "should." It has a different meaning from "must."
The reason for you to call an obvious bank or combination is if the referee is inexperienced and might call a miss on you. Suppose you spend 30 seconds lining up a bank shot which is the only way to pocket the eight because all your opponent's balls are on the table and all the other pockets are blocked. You even make the isosceles triangle with your cue stick. If the referee has no idea what you're playing without a specific call, he needs more training.
BJ,
Unfortunately for all of us, these rules are not routinely in effect.
The last league I played in, and the last 2 tournaments I played in decided to use their own rule set (two of the three had never heard of the world standardized rules).
The sport suffers from the wide variation in rules for both general principles and specific games. The standardized rules need to filter down to the general pool playing public. Pool needs something like the BCA was supposed to be; a widely accepted ruling body that sets standards and promotes the game...maybe I'll live long enough to see such an organization succeed.
Last edited:
The absolute worst example of this is the APA rules for 9 Ball which actually permit pattern racking. This results in 250,000 players who will look at you cross-eyed when you try to tell them that pattern racking is against the rules.
In regard to the second part of your post, if such an organization does ever succeed I doubt it will be the BCA. The Billiard Congress has proven to be nothing more than an industry trade group.
No need to feel awkward and embarrassed in returning to the table in such a situation. Under world-standardized rules, this is just outside interference, to be handled as follows:
1.9 Outside Interference
When outside interference occurs during a shot that has an effect on the outcome of that shot, the referee will restore the balls to the positions they had before the shot, and the shot will be replayed. If the interference had no effect on the shot, the referee will restore the disturbed balls and play will continue. If the balls cannot be restored to their original positions, the situation is handled like a stalemate.
When outside interference occurs during a shot that has an effect on the outcome of that shot, the referee will restore the balls to the positions they had before the shot, and the shot will be replayed. If the interference had no effect on the shot, the referee will restore the disturbed balls and play will continue. If the balls cannot be restored to their original positions, the situation is handled like a stalemate.
AL,
Unfortunately it was in a VNEA match, no refs. In such circumstances the team captains (had they been asked to get involved) would have had to argue it and come to some conclusion. What a whack way to resolve controversy. The chances of both captains knowing the rules is infintessimally small; the chances of them agreeing somewhat less.
Class move, a sign of a man who values the worth of an honest win over money and attention.
Thorsten is obviously smart enough to make more money doing other things than pool if money was his main goal. The fact he wants to be a champion without thinking back to calling some BS rule on someone speaks volumes to his character.
Thorsten is obviously smart enough to make more money doing other things than pool if money was his main goal. The fact he wants to be a champion without thinking back to calling some BS rule on someone speaks volumes to his character.
hate to say it
I have been trying to stay away from this all evening but I have to say that when you put "should" in a rule it is no longer a rule, only a guideline. Worse yet, the "rule" gives people that feel the shot should have been called and people that don't feel it needed to be called equal foundation to stand on. We can all agree some shots are obvious, we can all agree some shots aren't obvious, but there are still an infinite number of shots in between these two extremes that two reasonable people can disagree about.
Hu
I have been trying to stay away from this all evening but I have to say that when you put "should" in a rule it is no longer a rule, only a guideline. Worse yet, the "rule" gives people that feel the shot should have been called and people that don't feel it needed to be called equal foundation to stand on. We can all agree some shots are obvious, we can all agree some shots aren't obvious, but there are still an infinite number of shots in between these two extremes that two reasonable people can disagree about.
Hu
some rules are just stupid Thorstan is a good man and should be applauded for his actions.
Neil all you want to do is stir up the sh--, its people like you that makes pool looks as bad as it does.
A guy does the honorable thing and get people like you trying to say it was wrong. Even if it was not with in the rules, if both players agree on it so what.
There are many times when things happen in a match and the players just work it out and don;t call a ref, even if they know its not the rule.
Neil all you want to do is stir up the sh--, its people like you that makes pool looks as bad as it does.
A guy does the honorable thing and get people like you trying to say it was wrong. Even if it was not with in the rules, if both players agree on it so what.
There are many times when things happen in a match and the players just work it out and don;t call a ref, even if they know its not the rule.
There was nothing against the rules in what Thorsten did - he was not making up or picking and choosing rules. And he was not showing up the ref.
It seems to me that effectively this is what happened:
The guy made the combo. The ref called it an illegally pocketed ball. So under the rules of 10 Ball Thorsten exercised his option, as the incoming player, to give the table back to his opponent. Granted, it was not for the usual reason that he gave it back, but that's irrelevant. He used his right to give the table back as an act of honor.
Kudos to Thorsten!!!!
It seems to me that effectively this is what happened:
The guy made the combo. The ref called it an illegally pocketed ball. So under the rules of 10 Ball Thorsten exercised his option, as the incoming player, to give the table back to his opponent. Granted, it was not for the usual reason that he gave it back, but that's irrelevant. He used his right to give the table back as an act of honor.
Kudos to Thorsten!!!!