I agree. Johnnyt
Thoughts on the two controversies of the final of US Open 10B?
- Thread starter JarnoV
- Start date
I agree. Johnnyt
Jay, you didn't say anything about my point on pattern racking. If you allow it throughout the tournament, but not at the end, aren't you really changing the nature of the competition somewhat? Some players are just better than others at breaking with a set-pattern rack. That may be one of the skills that got the player to the finals. Then in the finals he can no longer use that skill?
Frost did not play in the event, he was doing commentary.
So i know you mean Hatch !
Sorry for correcting you my friend, Zilla.
I did say the player HAD NO INPUT on the way the balls were racked by the referee. In the Masters, no pattern racking was allowed. If we saw it (only once), a player was given a warning the first time and loss of game the second. IMO pattern racking should not be one of the skills that make a good player. And don't belong in the competition.
Why???US OPEN 10-BALL Rules
There are a couple of issues here.
The World Pool Masters only had 1 table in play when they got to final 16 - it was single elimination. So the shot clock and similar discussions are not 'equal'.
The IPT rule is a very good rule. The only way you can run an event on time is to start on time. That means you have to finsih the previous match on time. Shortening the race is an equitable way to solve this problem. It is impractical to have a time keeper on every table.
The reference to Charlie Williams and Montal. That race to 7 took almost 3 hours. It was rediculous. CW can play very gfast and very slow. This was entirely too slow. He would get up and down several times on almost every shot. Matches that run over will ruin an event and is NOT fair to the following matches.
The main thing is to treat everyone the same.
Mark Griffin
There are a couple of issues here.
The World Pool Masters only had 1 table in play when they got to final 16 - it was single elimination. So the shot clock and similar discussions are not 'equal'.
The IPT rule is a very good rule. The only way you can run an event on time is to start on time. That means you have to finsih the previous match on time. Shortening the race is an equitable way to solve this problem. It is impractical to have a time keeper on every table.
The reference to Charlie Williams and Montal. That race to 7 took almost 3 hours. It was rediculous. CW can play very gfast and very slow. This was entirely too slow. He would get up and down several times on almost every shot. Matches that run over will ruin an event and is NOT fair to the following matches.
The main thing is to treat everyone the same.
Mark Griffin
This idea has been debated around here before and it is not the panacea it would seem to be. Here's one such thread in regard to straight pool but most of the debate still applies: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=151544
Sorry, but I think the 'main thing' is to have the best player win the tournament, don't you?
If that's not the primary objective then the tournament needs to be renamed and called an exhibition or something. It certainly shouldn't be called a 'championship tournament'.
Matches running over are a way of life in elimination sports - it happens in tennis all the time and it certainly doesn't 'ruin' their tournaments - in fact most people would say that makes the sport better, not worse. I've seen countless instances where the players are in the locker room waiting for the court to open up because there's a tight one going on. They get used to it.
Meanwhile you talk about treating everyone the same but shortening the race is 100% a disadvantage for the favored player, and that's a mathematical fact. Or would you disagree that it's easier to beat, say, Efren Reyes in a race to 7 than it is in a race to 9?
And with respect to the Williams/Montal match, who cares that they were running over? It was the last match of the night! Who would it have hurt to just let it run its course?
Last edited:
You are right, I'm easily confused in my old age. It did seem odd to me that the strict enforcement of the rules were laid aside because he said he was sick.
What if Parica said he was sick and that's why he missed his match, or Efren?
Seems like if you are going to be a hard ass with the rules you should do it to everybody, no exceptions.
I agree; I dislike it. And I was surprised they allowed it for the US Open, given that they were supposedly using WPA rules.
However, if a tournament has allowed it for the first 253 matches, I think it would be strange to disallow it for the final (254th) match.
I'm not clear on the specifics of that match, but if it was only Williams who was so slow, the guy who might care is Montal.
I've seen Charlie play in both modes -- faster than Strickland and slower than the slow version of Archer. And he can beat top players in either mode. It really makes one wonder whether he enters the slow mode as a "move."
I think it was a good decision. I'm usually not a proponent of the shot clock, but Wen was playing at a rediculously slow pace. He made Kid Delicious, at his slowest, look like Lou Butera! When a player does this whether he's doing it deliberately or not, he affects the other players rhythm and concentration. It's a shark whether it's done purposely or not! I was watching it and it was PAINFUL to watch. The crowd would applaud anything that put Lee Van back to the table, just so they wouldn't have to endure more of the "slow jerk". Even Billy and Scott were very vocal about how rediculous it was! It was a good call to ask them to speed it up, or else!
At 2-2 (I think), Lo ran out the rack and made 2 or 3 in the next rack. It took him something like 12-15 minutes to manage this. I felt like I hadn't seen LVC in a while, and I was amazed the score was still at 3-2.
It's not the worst I've seen though, Peter Ebdon once took 12 minutes to run a break of 10 in snooker (I think it was 4 or 5 balls).
It's not the worst I've seen though, Peter Ebdon once took 12 minutes to run a break of 10 in snooker (I think it was 4 or 5 balls).
That's true, but when the match was over Ebdon's average time per shot was 29 seconds, compared to 23 seconds for O'Sullivan. So there was all that controversy over what amounted to a 6 second difference.
They also asked Ronnie in the press conference after the match what he thought of Ebdon's play and Ronnie said he didn't begrudge the guy anything at all. He said Ebdon had four kids or whatever to feed and had every right as a professional player to do whatever it took to win. He went on to say he was more upset with himself for letting it bother him than he would ever be at Peter for playing the way he did.
I am not a slow player by any means, but it never ceases to amaze me how people go on and on about slow play. Throughout the history of cuesports there have always been people who played slower than others, and they always get knocked for it. Some people just take more time in order to make the balls go in the holes than others, why does that have to be such a big deal? I mean, as long as I've been around the game the slower players have been unfairly discriminated against. No one ever tells Earl or Luc Salvas or whomever to change their natural style, why do they constantly try and do it to guys like Varner, Archer, or Williams? Like do you get paid more if you win fast? Do you get extra beads on the wire for running a rack faster? People who say 30 or 40 seconds should be plenty of time to shoot a shot have likely never had to shoot one for their rent money.
Last edited:
Well, there is deliberate and then there is slow. I don't have a problem with Ralf Souqet usually, he doesn't over analyze situations only ensures he knows what he wants to do.
But when a player is agonizing over a routine shot for over a minute, which Lo was doing, that gets a bit tough to watch. It is ultimately supposed to be a spectator sport (game or whatever you want to call it).
Disagree with this completely. Just like refs making terrible calls in the BCAPL refs can also not have a clue how to rack the balls properly and thus give inconsistent racks that can in fact determine the outcome of a match instead of the playing ability of the two players competing. And that would be 100% wrong.
This touranment was rack your own throughout and IMO it was perfect. Players were not taking exessive amounts of time racking their own racks, they were content with their own racks, 10-ball being 10-ball even with pattern racking each rack was breaking distinctly and giving different patterns and shots.
I do not see why anyone would want to change the way this tournament was done. It was clearly not broke, don't try to fix it.