Thoughts on the two controversies of the final of US Open 10B?

JarnoV

JarnoV

JarnoV
Silver Member
Any thoughts on the two controversies of the final, first being the carom Lo made that Van Corteza was unhappy with and the other being the tournament director's decision to speed up the play?

The carom situation was early in the match where Lo played for a tied up two/five cluster intending to carom from the two making the five into the corner. Lo made the five and was making himself ready to shoot the next shot when Van Corteza protested by claiming that it was a foul. Like Billy and Scott said, the mistake on Van Corteza's part was not calling the referee before the shot to judge it. I just don't understand why he bothered to protest when he should very well know that no one's going to rule in favor of him.

The other controversy was the tournament director's decision to have a meeting with the players and commanding them to play faster. Now, I didn't see the start of the match, but from what I've heard, they (or was it just Lo Li-Wen?) really did play slow and the match became much more enjoyable to watch after the talk. But I think was Scott who said that neither of them seemed to intentionally play slow. I remember Scott saying that he felt kind of bad about the decision right after it, because it seemed that Lo was playing kind of nervous for a while. Fortunately, that didn't last long and he started to play real good.

Was the decision based on the interpretation that the players (or Lo specifically) did that intentionally? Or did it look like the match would take too long if it continued at that pace or what? And just how slow did they play in the beginning?

It was a good decision, in hindsight at least, but seems kind of odd to me.
 
good points

JarnoV said:
Any thoughts on the two controversies of the final, first being the carom Lo made that Van Corteza was unhappy with and the other being the tournament director's decision to speed up the play?

The carom situation was early in the match where Lo played for a tied up two/five cluster intending to carom from the two making the five into the corner. Lo made the five and was making himself ready to shoot the next shot when Van Corteza protested by claiming that it was a foul. Like Billy and Scott said, the mistake on Van Corteza's part was not calling the referee before the shot to judge it. I just don't understand why he bothered to protest when he should very well know that no one's going to rule in favor of him.

The other controversy was the tournament director's decision to have a meeting with the players and commanding them to play faster. Now, I didn't see the start of the match, but from what I've heard, they (or was it just Lo Li-Wen?) really did play slow and the match became much more enjoyable to watch after the talk. But I think was Scott who said that neither of them seemed to intentionally play slow. I remember Scott saying that he felt kind of bad about the decision right after it, because it seemed that Lo was playing kind of nervous for a while. Fortunately, that didn't last long and he started to play real good.

Was the decision based on the interpretation that the players (or Lo specifically) did that intentionally? Or did it look like the match would take too long if it continued at that pace or what? And just how slow did they play in the beginning?

It was a good decision, in hindsight at least, but seems kind of odd to me.
Click to expand...


Lee Van almost had to protest a shot to get the shots starting to be called a little more. I saw quite a few shots in the streams that should have been called and weren't. No problem with him protesting and I think it made for a little more care on everyone's part including the official's for the rest of the match.

The slow play thing I see a bit differently. It didn't appear either player was deliberately stalling and there are only two real reasons to go to a shot clock or hurry the players along. Either somebody is stalling as a sharking move or to keep the brackets moving fairly evenly. Obviously this is the last branch of the bracket so no reason to speed play out of consideration for other players. Since neither of the usual reasons for speeding play applied I think the players should have been allowed to continue at their own pace. I don't think this decided the outcome of the match but I think disrupting the match and speeding them up was a bad call.

Hu
 
IIRC, the first incident you refer to (whether the carom was a good hit or not) actually occurred in the hot seat match, not the final. That notwithstanding, LVC needed to call for a ref prior to the shot, period/end of story.

What I don't understand is why the hot seat match of a U.S. Open Championship was not ref'd to begin with. I would think that with the number of matches being played on the last day, they could ALL be refereed.

The slow play thing in the final was interesting because they had eliminated the slow play penalty (adding games on the wire) for the final but no mention was made of any other slow play rules to take its place. I'll say one thing, the warning did not help LVC because Lo then started playing more to his natural pace and made a charge right after it was issued.

Here's a question: What about the slow play penalty of adding a game on the wire for both players? There seemed little argument from the players but I don't get the idea behind this penalty. It seems to me it only penalizes the player that is behind because it puts his opponent one game closer to winning the match. The player that is ahead in a sense is actually rewarded by the penalty. What say you?
 
slow play penalty

DogsPlayingPool said:
IIRC, the first incident you refer to (whether the carom was a good hit or not) actually occurred in the hot seat match, not the final. That notwithstanding, LVC needed to call for a ref prior to the shot, period/end of story.

What I don't understand is why the hot seat match of a U.S. Open Championship was not ref'd to begin with. I would think that with the number of matches being played on the last day, they could ALL be refereed.

The slow play thing in the final was interesting because they had eliminated the slow play penalty (adding games on the wire) for the final but no mention was made of any other slow play rules to take its place. I'll say one thing, the warning did not help LVC because Lo then started playing more to his natural pace and made a charge right after it was issued.

Here's a question: What about the slow play penalty of adding a game on the wire for both players? There seemed little argument from the players but I don't get the idea behind this penalty. It seems to me it only penalizes the player that is behind because it puts his opponent one game closer to winning the match. The player that is ahead in a sense is actually rewarded by the penalty. What say you?
Click to expand...

Unless I am confused from watching too much pool lately I think the slow play penalty in earlier matches was that if the total games played in the first hour wasn't at least eight then an equal number of games would be added to both player's score to make the total games either eight or nine depending on the actual count when they were added. This could have been one game each or as many as four games each if they had engaged in the ultimate safety battle and hadn't played a single game yet.

As you say, adding games benefits the leader because it moves them that much closer to the finish without giving the player that is behind a chance to catch up. It seemed to work OK but it doesn't seem quite fair to me. A player could game this to their advantage if they wanted to. Perhaps some did.

Hu
 
That late in a major tournament it seems like a referee should be watching the match.

The same tournament director gave Frost unlimited breaks in his match because he said he was sick.

You open yourself up to criticism when you do things like that.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
IIRC, the first incident you refer to (whether the carom was a good hit or not) actually occurred in the hot seat match, not the final. That notwithstanding, LVC needed to call for a ref prior to the shot, period/end of story.

What I don't understand is why the hot seat match of a U.S. Open Championship was not ref'd to begin with. I would think that with the number of matches being played on the last day, they could ALL be refereed.

The slow play thing in the final was interesting because they had eliminated the slow play penalty (adding games on the wire) for the final but no mention was made of any other slow play rules to take its place. I'll say one thing, the warning did not help LVC because Lo then started playing more to his natural pace and made a charge right after it was issued.

Here's a question: What about the slow play penalty of adding a game on the wire for both players? There seemed little argument from the players but I don't get the idea behind this penalty. It seems to me it only penalizes the player that is behind because it puts his opponent one game closer to winning the match. The player that is ahead in a sense is actually rewarded by the penalty. What say you?
Click to expand...

Very good point here. When it gets down to one table, there should be a referee watching that table at all times, and even racking the balls. Why this was not the case I don't know. The players shouldn't have to call the ref to watch a hit. He should have been there already. Even with two tables, I would say this should be the case.

As far as slow play is concerned, that is a judgement call on the part of the TD. One observation I have was that the finals was too long, especially for a Ten Ball match. A Race to Eleven would have been more than adequate, and still a long match. No reason to make a marathon out of it.
 
Hu nailed it, if the stalling isn't deliberate and isn't hurting anyone except in the sense of boring the fans... let them play slow. Nerves were very evident in this tournament and it's probably true that hustling the players along may actually have helped them out. Sometimes it seemed like they were overthinking things in the situations where they have only 2 lousy options. But I don't agree with forcing anyone to shoot faster than they want.

I think the games-on-the-wire penalty makes sense... I guess you could manipulate to get yourself on the hill. That's a psychological edge and I'd love to guarantee getting on the hill vs. an opponent who has, say, 4 games. Then he has to win 4 in a row and it seems like a big uphill climb. The players in this tournament don't seem evil enough to do something like that though, and of course it could backfire.

Not much to say about the hit except if there's a ref and he's being paid, he should be there. If there aren't enough refs to go around, you fetch one.
 
jay helfert said:
Very good point here. When it gets down to one table, there should be a referee watching that table at all times, and even racking the balls. ...
Click to expand...

Jay -- question for you. If the entire tournament up to the finals has been rack your own, with pattern racking allowed, do you think the referee should then take over racking? If your answer is "yes," should the breaking player be allowed to specify the placement of the balls he wants before the referee then positions the rack for the break?

The WPA rules do not permit pattern racking. But this tournament seemed to allow it. Some players are more knowledgeable or competent using pattern racking than are other players. If pattern racking has been allowed throughout most of the tournament, is it appropriate to take it away near the end?
 
Regading the slow play, they would have played 5 more hours without some kind of correction. That pace was brutal.
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
Jay -- question for you. If the entire tournament up to the finals has been rack your own, with pattern racking allowed, do you think the referee should then take over racking? If your answer is "yes," should the breaking player be allowed to specify the placement of the balls he wants before the referee then positions the rack for the break?

The WPA rules do not permit pattern racking. But this tournament seemed to allow it. Some players are more knowledgeable or competent using pattern racking than are other players. If pattern racking has been allowed throughout most of the tournament, is it appropriate to take it away near the end?
Click to expand...


The TD or his designated referee should rack in the final match or matches. The players have no input other than to be able to inspect the rack. The ref will decide when they must break.
 
By the quarter finals when it is down to 2 tables, the matches should be ref'd. Not just to call "hits", but also to call fouls. It wasn't specifically mentioned so I'm not sure, but the fact that the last few matches weren't refereed tells me they were probably playing CB fouls only all the way to the end.

I get CB fouls only when all the tables are going and not each match can be ref'd but if this is going to be a major championship, at some point in the proceedings shouldn't matches be played all ball fouls?

Please correct me if I got this wrong. But at the beginning of the tournament I know for a fact it was CB fouls only and without a ref overseeing the matches I assume it stayed that way to the end.
 
Last edited:
CreeDo said:
Hu nailed it, if the stalling isn't deliberate and isn't hurting anyone except in the sense of boring the fans... let them play slow. Nerves were very evident in this tournament and it's probably true that hustling the players along may actually have helped them out. Sometimes it seemed like they were overthinking things in the situations where they have only 2 lousy options. But I don't agree with forcing anyone to shoot faster than they want.

I think the games-on-the-wire penalty makes sense... I guess you could manipulate to get yourself on the hill. That's a psychological edge and I'd love to guarantee getting on the hill vs. an opponent who has, say, 4 games. Then he has to win 4 in a row and it seems like a big uphill climb. The players in this tournament don't seem evil enough to do something like that though, and of course it could backfire.

Not much to say about the hit except if there's a ref and he's being paid, he should be there. If there aren't enough refs to go around, you fetch one.
Click to expand...

What if the slow play was hurting Lee Van? Which I believe it definetly was. His expressions from his chair seemed that of disbelief of how slow Lo was playing.

There is no doubt Lo was playing slow and looking sub par to his previous performances. But man did he turn it up after the TD spoke with them and made it a very watchable, good match from that point out.
 
zy112 said:
What if the slow play was hurting Lee Van? Which I believe it definetly was. His expressions from his chair seemed that of disbelief of how slow Lo was playing.

There is no doubt Lo was playing slow and looking sub par to his previous performances. But man did he turn it up after the TD spoke with them and made it a very watchable, good match from that point out.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm not so sure Lo's slow play was actually hurting LVC. :grin-square: As I recall LVC had him 7-3 at the warning and Lo proceeded to win the next 4 racks.
 
zy112 said:
What if the slow play was hurting Lee Van? Which I believe it definetly was. His expressions from his chair seemed that of disbelief of how slow Lo was playing.

There is no doubt Lo was playing slow and looking sub par to his previous performances. But man did he turn it up after the TD spoke with them and made it a very watchable, good match from that point out.
Click to expand...

Well, intentional sharking is one thing, but accidental sharking? Part of Lee Van's job as a pool player is to learn how to fade that. Anyway it looks like it didn't hurt Lee TOO bad. He's got the big shiny cup. If Lo was playing subpar by playing slow, then the outcome would have been the same anyway, just more tedious for all involved.
 
Thunderball said:
Regading the slow play, they would have 5 more hours without some kind of correction. That pace was brutal.
Click to expand...

I agree. I watched Hi-Lo/Lo-Hi/Hi-Li play an earlier match at a much quicker pace. His pace of play became tortuous. Lee Van -not so much.

I was ready to turn it off before the ref had his little chat.
 
This whole thing where the ref just walks up and adds games to the wire in the matches has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. No wonder pool is such a gong show! First of all, we're in goddamn LAS VEGAS. There's no closing time to worry about, who cares if one match or two runs long and it runs until 2:00am or something? That's what makes the game MORE fun, not less!

Can you imagine them doing that at the US Open tennis or something? I mean they have night matches all the time, and every once in a while they run late. Can you really believe that the officials would be like, "Sorry Mr. Federer, I know you're the hardest player in the history of the game to win three sets against, but tonight because it's late, this guy only has to win two. Tough luck, but we really have to get moving here." Give me a break.

I mean, we were sitting there watching a very entertaining match between Charlie Williams and Edwin Montal that was clearly going to go the distance, but it never got the chance because they shortened the race by two games. As soon as they did half the spectators got up and left too because it just totally ruined the dynamic of the match. Like races at pool tournaments are already obscenely short, but now they want to make them shorter? Absolutely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
3RAILKICK said:
I agree. I watched Hi-Lo/Lo-Hi/Hi-Li play an earlier match at a much quicker pace. His pace of play became tortuous. Lee Van -not so much.

I was ready to turn it off before the ref had his little chat.
Click to expand...

I did turn it off before the chat. I'm no mind reader, but I suspect Lo's excruciatingly slow play was done as a sharking move. This disgusted me to the point of leaving the stream. I returned in time to witness the last rack...It made me happy to see Lee Van win...despite my rooting for Lo before the match began. Lo is a very skilled player...I just didn't see the need for him to play as slow as he did.
 
Slow

It was so slow that i tuned out and missed it. I'm glad Lee Van won in the end.
 
45 second shot clock with 1 extension per game. Every once in awhile you might need more time. Use your extentions wisely and think faster. It would be the same for both players and make for a better match and more come from behind matches IMO. Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
45 second shot clock with 1 extension per game. Every once in awhile you might need more time. Use your extentions wisely and think faster. It would be the same for both players and make for a better match and more come from behind matches IMO. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Johnny, at the World Pool Masters the week before we used a 40 second shot clock on all the TV matches, with one extension per game. It was more than enough time and only one "time" foul was called on a player in fifteen matches.

We also played foul on all balls, which is the rule used in international play, both in Europe and Asia. It's time the USA caught up to the rest of the pool world. We have been playing this rule in Straight Pool forever. It should be instituted into 9-Ball and Ten Ball as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top