Video of "The Shot" on The Action Report

[Bob Jewett]

Is there anything wrong with ball-in-hand if the previous player misses? ...

I assume you mean "foul". I would really hate to see anyone but the guy ahead of me foul. I think BIH in ring games is felt to be too big a punishment for a miss on a crowded table or too big an advantage to the person getting it.

If you really meant "misses," as in everyone starts each inning with ball in hand, it might be an interesting game but quick. I've heard of a two-player version of this (any miss is a foul), but there you can do things like make a difficult-to-get-to cluster if you have no shot.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

I would really hate to see anyone but the guy ahead of me foul. I think BIH in ring games is felt to be too big a punishment for a miss on a crowded table or too big an advantage to the person getting it.

That makes sense. Hmm, so how do you propose eliminating "honest effort" rule completely?

f you really meant "misses," as in everyone starts each inning with ball in hand, it might be an interesting game but quick. I've heard of a two-player version of this (any miss is a foul), but there you can do things like make a difficult-to-get-to cluster if you have no shot.

That's how they do the Texas-Hold-Em ring-game.

 

[Bob Jewett]

That makes sense. Hmm, so how do you propose eliminating "honest effort" rule completely?

I don't think anyone has come up with such a rule.

Well, here's one that might actually work:

Players are allowed to conspire. Hooked? Push out for a straight in for the guy who follows you (your cousin) and while you're at it, break up the 6-7-8 cluster. Got the short stack? Make a deal with #2. Watch him double-cross you. Triple-cross him. As long as the situation is understood by all, I think there is no problem. It would put a lot more psychological interest into the game. Of course, it might make some of the side action hot.

 

[JCIN]

I don't think anyone has come up with such a rule.

Well, here's one that might actually work:

Players are allowed to conspire. Hooked? Push out for a straight in for the guy who follows you (your cousin) and while you're at it, break up the 6-7-8 cluster. Got the short stack? Make a deal with #2. Watch him double-cross you. Triple-cross him. As long as the situation is understood by all, I think there is no problem. It would put a lot more psychological interest into the game. Of course, it might make some of the side action hot.

Somewhere out there, there is a politician who plays B speed that would be a stone lock in that game.

 

[Charlie Hustle]

Im still a little confused about Mc W's bet. Was he giving 7-2 on the money, or was he receiving it. Also, I take it he bet that Mike Banks would win it all?

 

[BVal]

Im still a little confused about Mc W's bet. Was he giving 7-2 on the money, or was he receiving it. Also, I take it he bet that Mike Banks would win it all?

He bet that anyone but Banks Jr. would win and was giving 7-2.

BVal

 

[Charlie Hustle]

He bet that anyone but Banks Jr. would win and was giving 7-2.

BVal

Ok so he won the bet, so why was he so upset about the alleged bussiness going on between the 2 players?

 

[crosseyedjoe]

I don't think anyone has come up with such a rule.

Well, here's one that might actually work:

Players are allowed to conspire. Hooked? Push out for a straight in for the guy who follows you (your cousin) and while you're at it, break up the 6-7-8 cluster. Got the short stack? Make a deal with #2. Watch him double-cross you. Triple-cross him. As long as the situation is understood by all, I think there is no problem. It would put a lot more psychological interest into the game. Of course, it might make some of the side action hot.

I don't think that will be good for the joint, broken bottles, glasses, windows and chairs, and bloody pool table; however, that really removes the need for "honest effort" rule.

 

[pooltableproCP]

I think the sad part is that the longer this issue drags on, the 2 young up and coming players will be saddled with an undeserved reputation. Like any other "rumor", things tend to get exaggerated as time passes. The accusations of one should not cloud the reality of many.

 

[jrhendy]

I don't think anyone has come up with such a rule.

Well, here's one that might actually work:

Players are allowed to conspire. Hooked? Push out for a straight in for the guy who follows you (your cousin) . As long as the situation is understood by all, I think there is no problem. It would put a lot more psychological interest into the game. Of course, it might make some of the side action hot.

Sounds like a ring golf game with a stranger in it. John Henderson

 

[BVal]

I watched the whole thing on the live feed and these two guys played their asses off. They deserved to be in the final and did nothing wrong to get there. If they get any kind of bad rep I am guessing it will only be from a few people who don't really mean much to anything or anyone anyways. Not that I do

BVal

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Dan Tull said later that night that in the future a player must shoot at any ball they can see. While that is a whole new can of worms, it will keep a situation like this from happening again.

I think Jay's idea of passing the shot forward would work pretty well. You are still going to have similar situations though. In this case if McMinn passed this tough out forward to Orcollo he probably doesn't get out and then leaves both of his opponents with a chance at a table with what could be a much easier layout. I think this type of problem is just inherent in the format. Its not good or bad, just part of the game in this particular set of rules. Only way I see to stop it is go to ball in hand on all fouls and missed shots. Something tells me that would open another pandora's box.

At least the BIH was already applied at the professional level.

 

[Craig Fales]

the problem in all of these is tha rule,,,he would have never passed this shot if he knew he cannot return it to the previous shooter...

bottomline is... he took advantage of the rules ...so he can be guarantedd at least second or something...

the shot for their caliber,,is not that hard and the position for the two ball..

the rules should be changed in the fiture to where if you pass -up a shot it should be the next shooter not the previous shooter...

All I have to say about what you said is "WRONG!!!" you must not play very many ring games...going to the next shooter means you're screwed out of an opportunity at the table...

 

[John Barton]

So Mcwhatever says the shot was easy(I happen to agree), but others say it was the layout of the table that gave him a reason to hand the shot back. So my question is, what if it had been a hanger with a tough layout? Could he hand it back or does he have to make an honest effort?

If he would be allowed to give it back, I think the rules are flawed. I still think that the rules imply that an honest effort be made when it is your turn, and I think Shane made no such effort in this case. In the end though, it really doesn't matter what I think.

No Ring Game rules for all eternity allow the incoming player after a foul to give the shot back - no reason needs to be given. Shane didn't even hesitate. He made the absolute right call there. I actually thought the one ball was a little closer to the side pocket than it was but it doesn't matter. If the balls were all ducks Shane would have been allowed to give the shot back.

HONEST EFFORT only applies when you are SHOOTING the ball. The rules were followed with no lapse of ethics in this situation on Shane's part.

 

[JamieMcWhorter]

Make it 9 out of 10 and get similar position on the two ball. Son, you've got a bet!

ANYTIME....MR HELFERT YOU ARE DRUNK..LAY OFF THE BOOZE.......

SHAPE IS NATURAL...ILL BET YOU I LIVE IN OHIO...ILL FLY YOU HERE AND BET YOU......NAME YOUR TERMS AND BET...........

9 OUT OF 10 SURE AND SHAPE SURE WHY NOT....BRING IT ON

 

[John Barton]

Dan Tull said later that night that in the future a player must shoot at any ball they can see. While that is a whole new can of worms, it will keep a situation like this from happening again.

I think Jay's idea of passing the shot forward would work pretty well. You are still going to have similar situations though. In this case if McMinn passed this tough out forward to Orcollo he probably doesn't get out and then leaves both of his opponents with a chance at a table with what could be a much easier layout. I think this type of problem is just inherent in the format. Its not good or bad, just part of the game in this particular set of rules. Only way I see to stop it is go to ball in hand on all fouls and missed shots. Something tells me that would open another pandora's box.

I like the idea of shooting at balls you can see - but I would change it to also allowing the incoming player to pass any shot back when they are hooked. This almost eliminates the intentional snooker and guarantees that every player will get a fair swing at the object ball.

 

[pwd72s]

DING! We have another winner. You may have finally got to the real reason for McWoofWoof rant's. Whoever thought of this name deserves some rep.

Please excuse this newcomer...but isn't this a bit like drag racing bets?

"B.S. walks...money talks" ????

So, bring out the cash? CASH?

 

[poolfire]

why

ANYTIME....MR HELFERT YOU ARE DRUNK..LAY OFF THE BOOZE.......

SHAPE IS NATURAL...ILL BET YOU I LIVE IN OHIO...ILL FLY YOU HERE AND BET YOU......NAME YOUR TERMS AND BET...........

9 OUT OF 10 SURE AND SHAPE SURE WHY NOT....BRING IT ON

MCWUSSY just go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rackem]

Calcutta question

It was a fine tournament and I did then and still do feel that everything was on the up and up. Unfortunately there was one particular mouthy fan that is trying to spoil it. I think he was spectating with his wallet and not his heart.
I may have missed it, but thru all this I am still wondering who had DO in the calcutta. Is it possible that McWoof had some of it also?

 

[Craig Fales]

Too me when he gave the shot back the four ball and the side pocket can get in your eye...on top of the 2 which to me looked like it had just enough room to pass...I'd pass it back too....