What a tool!!!
- Thread starter sigep1967
- Start date
I see a loose analogy to 14.1 in 10 ball. The outs have similar distribution and the major difficulty is finding and getting to the on ramp. My take is this pedantic-ness about 10 ball outs is the reason for calling pockets. How would 14.1 fare without call all? The formality is so ingrained, this seems like a stupid question yet there are countless situations in both games that leave no option as to intent regardless of technicalities - more so in rotation where _which ball_ is known. In the topic instance, _which pocket_ was inevitable.
I think the real technical was the stage mothering. Is this typical of junior winners??
Guy's an ahole but also, isn't SE in danger of becoming a brat? Is that ok?
Sorry, but I'm hard pressed to think of any similarity between 10ball and 14.1.
The game of 10ball is most like is 9ball, which has been played without call shot at least since the 1970s. When the Pro Billiards Tour tried 10ball in the late 1990s for a couple of years, there was no call shot. The many who suggest that 10ball arose as a call shot game are simply uninformed.
There has never been a reason for call shot in 10ball.
The call shot feature, though necessary in 14.1, is part of what made straight pool a bad game for viewing, and virtually ensured that it would be replaced by something more viewer friendly once pool began to be shown on TV.
Unfortunately Bob, there seem to be many "rules" that have been made by the various "ruling" bodies that are ill conceived and in some cases unnecessary. I will agree with Stu that Ten Ball should not be call shot and that two way shots should be part of the game. It's real simple that way, but some people decided we need more rules. Good luck with that.
And what you see on this thread is the result of some ill advised rule making. Please don't tell me the rules are the rules and must be adhered to at all times. Just like we see in other professional sports, rules can and are often changed when it becomes obvious they are not in the best interest of the game. This is one of those times in pool, Ten Ball specifically.
There were many times over the years that I made judgement calls based on what I, as an official, thought was in the best interest of the game. This would have been one of those times.
Last edited:
Just trying to source the reason for call pocket. The 14.1 analogy is as close as I can come. The distribution in 10 ball is like many 14.1 racks - zero pocketing difficulty and even less sequential difficulty despite the numerical requirement. After all, you just shoot 'em where they go. There must be a reason call pocket is stipulated. (?)
The parents were orders of magnitude out of line more then his "Nittyness". How out of normal does the shot have to be before the Nitty-police think it's acceptable? 3 Ball combo. 3 Ball combo bank-carom? Remember SVB letting his opponent shoot the wrong ball?
Lets just put the whole thing to bed.
Nittyscale =6
Poor parental example = 9
Offsetting penalties.
Lets just put the whole thing to bed.
Nittyscale =6
Poor parental example = 9
Offsetting penalties.
Well puted.
I agree with everything that you've posted here...and Hoang is still an arsehole.
I don't understand this nit thing. The tournaments I play in are all ball fouls, if your finger, clothing or cue touch any ball, its a foul, not only would a close friend call you on it as expected, you'd be looked down on for not calling it on yourself, you broke the rules and should immediately admit you fouled and turn over ball in hall. Sometimes some slack is cut for a brand new player, first tournament or two, but after that it's expected you play by the agreed rules. Why is playing by the agreed upon rules a nit move?
Because this is obvious shot..
What if the other ball had gone in clean past the combo ball, its definitely happened before, you'd have to trust that the player would call the foul on themselves, that is why all kicks, banks, caroms and combos aren't considered obvious shots, because shit can happen and then you have to trust they the player would be truthful.
Poolmanis is right. This shot is very obvious, and I think most of us would agree that this would have been a nit move in a friendly game played in a pool room and even in a gambling match.
The world of professional tournament play brings a far more formal game and those who expect to succeed in it better know and observe the rules and better expect to pay a price anytime they fail to do so.
The causal etiquette of the poolroom as it pertains to the rules has no relevance to world class tournament play. It's a lesson learned the hard way for Savannah, but I feel quite certain she'll come out of it wiser and stronger.
The real culprit here is call shot rules. Slop counts in snooker, a game in which running the balls takes far better cueing than pool, and it also counts in 9ball, the most commonly played rotation pool game at pro level. And yet, one day a few of the pool purists decided that to have a true and fair test of cueing in rotation games, call shot was needed. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Call shot games are fan unfriendly and they also bring some ambiguity to the proceedings. The most electrifying 10ball event of the year is at Derby City and it's partly because it is played without call shot.
Wishing Savannah well as she navigates her path toward world class play. This minor setback won't slow her down one bit.
Last edited:
Yep the old ways.... teach your kid that when someone mistreats you on a pool table at a tournament to then do this huh?
Yep 1967, she'd learn ALLOT from your actions in the parking lot.
I guess she learned a lesson. I always call banks and combo’s no matter how obvious for this reason. I could never have called this foul and the guy is a high level douche for doing it but essentially it is a foul. I promise she will never do that again. lessons are learned in the most shitty ways and at the worst time.
So in context of my post I said if he (the player) had said what you here at the end of the video then yes we would have had a come to Jesus meeting in the parking lot or right there on the floor. If he did not say that and it was said said by another party to him then that was about as much of a nit as he was being about calling the foul on the obvious combo.
Now after listening to it more closely I do not believe the player said that but someone in the crowd was saying it to him. Which in my opinion was wrong.
LOL of course if that had been my daughter and the guy did say that to her I would have had more trouble keeping her from breaking her cue stick over his head.
Funny you should bring this up on here. I can remember when on this same forum not so long ago there were many people that were upset because tournaments were now calling fouls on any touching of the cue ball or object balls during a shot. "All Ball Fouls" were wrong in their opinion. They firmly believed that "Cue Ball Fouls Only" should remain the correct way to play 9-Ball, Ten Ball or One Pocket and that All Ball Fouls should only be the domain of Straight Pool. Their argument was that playing All Ball Fouls would be too difficult to enforce. I disagreed saying that playing ABF was actually easier to officiate than CBFO only. This way there was no question if it was a foul or not.
For so many years (decades) almost all tournaments in this country (except 14.1) and in most of the world were being played with CBFO. We've come full circle now and almost all tournaments play ABF, as well it should be in professional pool. The CBFO crowd has fallen silent. I find this turn of events interesting and it speaks to human nature.
As far as the issue here, I still think Savannah got a raw deal and should have received a warning at best. The "rules" pertaining to this type of shot have been changed back and forth again and again, depending on the time and the place and the presiding governing body for that event and the rules being used by the tournament organizers for the event. Even the rules shown on here are somewhat contradictory regarding calling obvious shots or combinations. Often times rule changes or "official" rules do not cover everything that is given to players in tournaments. They are somehow just expected to be up to date on what all the current rules are and what/who's rules are being used here.
What Savannah learned here is that sometimes life is not fair! That's one for all of us to remember!
There would have been no reason for Hoang to have made those ugly comments to Savannah after the match. She reluctantly accepted the result of not calling the combo far more maturely than most other players would have handled it in that situation.
Unless I missed it, the OP needs to edit and correct his first post and issue an apology for wrongly having accused Hoang of making those statements at the completion of the match.
I see now that the OP did finally admit he was wrong, in a post just before this one. If keeping up with the thread he started, he should have done so much sooner.
It doesn't matter and probably nobody else cares, but to get it straight - it was never a foul and nobody called a foul. She made a legal hit but didn't call the shot. End of inning, no ball in hand, incoming player's option. (He chose to shoot, and did not take ball in hand.)
Anyway yes, in this situation - and w/no ref - I feel the Morally Correct Play would be to let the opponent keep shooting with a reminder to call non-obvious shots. (As per the definition.) While this one was obvious, the next one might not be.
PS If that combo was on the 10 ball, in a call-shot game any player would make a point of explicitly calling it, no? So why not on the 3?