Why does a player have to call an extension if there is a referee?

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
I'm not against a shot clock. Actually, I'm all for it. The problem I have with it is that it should last a minimum of 40 seconds. 30 seconds just seems ridiculously short, especially on some key shots (which does happen more than once a rack on many occasions).

I see players leave their chairs, get behind the shot to size it up and a good 10 seconds have already run off of the clock, sometimes because the outgoing player has remained at the table to see if he/she got the snooker or simply because they are upset/bewildered that they missed a shot. The incoming player shouldn't be penalized when that happens.

IMO, the shot clock shouldn't be started until all balls have stopped rolling AND the outgoing player is seated in his/her chair.

Maniac
 
Last edited:

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm not against a shot clock. Actually, I'm all for it. The problem I have with it is that it should last a minimum of 40 seconds.
I see players leave their chairs, get behind the shot to size it up and a good 10 seconds have already run off of the clock.

IMO, the shot clock shouldn't be started until all balls have stopped rolling AND the outgoing player is seated in his/her chair.

Maniac
Clock shouldn't start til player gets to table and starts sizing up his shot.
 

muskyed

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Watching this as a spectator, I'm all for shot clocks. The automatic extension could be a good idea, but that has nothing to do with what happened here. Is there one set of rules for Shane, and another for everyone else? Shane is a big boy, and fully knows the rules and what is required. The fact that he likes to turn his hearing aids down is a choice that he makes. I watched the replay and while I saw him give a quick glance the other way, I never saw his lips move. I don't believe anyone thinks he was trying to get away with a mistake on his part, as I'm sure he feels he asked for an extension, but honestly if the ref didn't hear it, that's on Shane, and no one else. Ref was just doing what he was supposed to do, even the announcers after looking at the replays said they never saw him ask for an extension. After looking at the replay, would this call have been overturned if it wasn't one of the top 20 players, I think not.
 

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Shane Van Boening is deaf. He didn't hear the beeping. He disagreed with the referee calling the foul. The referee should have given him the extension. Same English referee who doesn't know how to get a tight rack in 9 ball. If the player runs out of time the referee should ask if he wants an extension. If he says no - which I've never seen - then he gets a foul.

Do you think players should be required to call push? That seems like straight pool where it is call shot but nobody calls every ball when it's obvious. It's obvious when a player pushes. It's obvious the player wants the extension. It's as if these referees are bored so they want to interject themselves into the game. They should also not follow the player around the table. Stand in one place unless there is a situation which calls for a referee - and learn how to rack. Lead official for US Open 9 ball can't rack.

Referees should be there to help the players whenever possible not punish them.



Are you saying a player would take an intentional foul and not use the extension? That makes no sense. Just give him the extension.

I've seen several of Pat Fleming's "make it happen" events and they were much better run than this fiasco. If Matchroom wants to have the U S Open they should hire some competent people to run the event for them.

Jeezus you people are crybabies.
“What’s the deal with the carpet Matchroom? And don’t get me started on the ref’s gloves or the aluminum railings. Total disaster!”
 

surffisher2a

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think the extension should be automatic. The only warning bell should sound with 10 seconds left after the player already used their extension.

I think the shot after the opening break should be a 60 second clock and the first shot when coming to the table should be 45 seconds (this gives the players time to get in and out of their chairs). All other shots should be 30 second clock.
 

easy-e

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Shane Van Boening is deaf. He didn't hear the beeping. He disagreed with the referee calling the foul. The referee should have given him the extension. Same English referee who doesn't know how to get a tight rack in 9 ball. If the player runs out of time the referee should ask if he wants an extension. If he says no - which I've never seen - then he gets a foul.

Do you think players should be required to call push? That seems like straight pool where it is call shot but nobody calls every ball when it's obvious. It's obvious when a player pushes. It's obvious the player wants the extension. It's as if these referees are bored so they want to interject themselves into the game. They should also not follow the player around the table. Stand in one place unless there is a situation which calls for a referee - and learn how to rack. Lead official for US Open 9 ball can't rack.

Referees should be there to help the players whenever possible not punish them.
I think players should call their extensions, simple as that.
 

JAM

Professional Railbird
Silver Member
Having had time to think about what I'll call the "Extension Debacle at the Open," these are my thoughts.

John Leyman as head referee, by all things that are right when it comes to tournament rules, should have the last say. As such, right or wrong, his call as a referee should be the the final say in most circumstances. I remember a referee making a bad call on Keith against Shannon Daulton at the 2005 SBE Pro/Am tournament. Everybody in the audience knew it was a bad call, and the referee was not experienced as John Leyman is. He was just a hired hand by SBE to fill in, and I believe he just guessed. Keith lost the match, and we had to suck it up. The referee makes the final call, like or not, even when it's a bad one.

Now comes the other side, something very worthy of mention. People with a hearing impairment do have difficulty elongating words, and they distort sounds when speaking. They also have problems with articulation. Sometimes, especially if there is noise in the room, they cannot hear their own voice when they speak. I am not saying this is what happened with Shane, but it is food for thought. With a hearing impairment comes speech difficulties. I'm sure Shane will make an effort to speak louder in the future to ensure whoever and wherever the referee is situated that the referee will hear him loud and clear. One thing for sure, Shane Van Boening is not a cheat and would not move forward with an extension if he did not believe he called one.

Though this holds no weight in a competition, railbirds on-site in the audience, one of whom is from Maryland, heard and saw Shane say "extension." Whereas the referee was situated approximately 15 feet behind Shane's back.

When the dust settled, on live TV no less, I applaud Matchroom's quick action. I think allowing Shane to continue shooting was the right decision by Matchroom. Yes, it was an affront to the head referee, John Leyman, but in this circumstance, considering that there may have been a modicum of doubt whether Shane said it or not, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I believe 100 percent that Shane said "extension," believes he said "extension, but because of the noise in the room and his hearing impairment, the referee did not hear the word spoken. Both of them are right and both of them are wrong, and when this happens, just like in a court of law, Matchroom being the supreme authority definitely made the right call in my opinion.

As an aside, maybe I've been watching snooker too long, but I really liked the snooker referees at the Matchroom competitions. When John Lehman called out "Let's break" at the beginning of each session, it was pretty odd. If he had done more Buffer-esque witn an emphasis on the "break" word like "breaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak," it might have been more pleasing. But each time he did it, it was like fingernails on a chalkboard to my ears.

I think Emily Frazer made the right call in letting Shane shoot after viewing the tapes, speaking to the referee, and then pulling both players off camera to talk to them. It was live TV, and she had to react with some quick thinking to put out the fire. Good for her!

242231366_10159525531353288_888598403109642832_n.jpg
 

Luxury

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Did anyone add that perhaps wants the audience to hear the player’s voices occasionally in a game where the only other shot that is called is “push?”

Maybe they feel a three syllable word sounds cooler.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
As for the referee moving around the table, at 14.1 it's necessary both for watching for fouls and for watching shots. If the ref is smooth at it, like the snooker refs, it is not distracting. Even at 9 ball, if all of a sudden the player gets down on a shot with his arm near a ball, the ref has to be there instantly to watch for the foul. There is no time for the ref to get out of his seat and come over to watch.
 

jsp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is there any other sport where the refs call the time outs for the players?
In basketball, if the shot clock expires should the refs automatically use one of the offensive team's timeouts?

Calling a timeout has never been an issue in all of sports that use a clock. It's not very difficult to call a timeout.

Likewise, it's not very difficult to call an extension.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In basketball, if the shot clock expires should the refs automatically use one of the offensive team's timeouts?

Calling a timeout has never been an issue in all of sports that use a clock. It's not very difficult to call a timeout.

Likewise, it's not very difficult to call an extension.
The situation at pool is very different from basketball. The value of not giving up ball in hand to your opponent at 9-ball is huge compared to losing your extension. It usually means you have lost that rack. Also, that extension does not affect extensions in following racks.

There is essentially no situation where the player would not call for an extension and give up ball in hand.

It's not real hard to call for one, but it seems it can be hard to hear the call for one. ;)
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I heard someone mentioned in another thread that they he felt the extension shouldn't begin to tick immediately when a player called for it.

I thought the person saying that must have seen something wrong and it turns out that is what did happen.

It makes absolutely no sense to be given an extention- in addition to a regular shot clock- and have the calling for the extension mean the regular time immediately ends. That's just dumb.

And of course, if an extension is available, then it should automatically be used ONCE THE REGULAR SHOT CLOCK EXPIRES on that player's shot.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... It makes absolutely no sense to be given an extention- in addition to a regular shot clock- and have the calling for the extension mean the regular time immediately ends. That's just dumb. ...
I'm pretty sure that the 30-second extension was added to whatever time the player had left.

Edit: I just checked how the extension worked as shown on the DAZN stream. When an extension was called, the time bar showed a green "EXTENSION" for the number of seconds that the player had left on his time and then the normal bar would start with 30 seconds. So, no time is lost by calling an extension early.
 

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The situation at pool is very different from basketball. The value of not giving up ball in hand to your opponent at 9-ball is huge compared to losing your extension. It usually means you have lost that rack. Also, that extension does not affect extensions in following racks.

There is essentially no situation where the player would not call for an extension and give up ball in hand.

It's not real hard to call for one, but it seems it can be hard to hear the call for one. ;)
True, but no basketball player with a timeout left is going to let the shot clock run down and lose possession, but people don’t say the ref ought to just give it to them without them needing to call it.

I also wonder about the logistics of making it automatic. I know the US Open used to do it that way, maybe Accu stats matches? When the player is given an automatic extension, are they informed? Is there a countdown sound when it gets to 5 seconds, and does it only happen if there’s no extension left?
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm pretty sure that the 30-second extension was added to whatever time the player had left.

Edit: I just checked how the extension worked as shown on the DAZN stream. When an extension was called, the time bar showed a green "EXTENSION" for the number of seconds that the player had left on his time and then the normal bar would start with 30 seconds. So, no time is lost by calling an extension early.
While I may suck at math...that isn't even math!

I'm gonna look. I watched a couple hours of the open coverage and thought my observation accurate

Damn thinking.
 

DDiabolico

DDiabolico
I think that an extension should and must be called by the player. I do think that Shane called his extension some time before he turned around right before his time expired. Maybe when he turned around to look at the clock there where 5 seconds left before the extension should have started and he was sure that he had 35 seconds total left. Shane is used to the shot clock despite being deaf and therefore he sometimes has to look at the clock for visual confirmation.

I agree that maybe he speaks not loud enough when calling extension but on the other hand, the referee could/should know about his impairment and therefore look a little bit closer for visual cues on Shanes side.

In my opinion, 30 seconds is a pretty good time limit. The outgoing player should leave the table as soon as it's clear that his turn ends and the incoming player may leave his seat and come to the table before the balls come to complete rest. Yes, it may be possible that both players stand around the table for a few seconds then, who cares. I didn't see any matches where the player missing a shot remained at the table until all balls stopped moving and the other player remained in his chair just as long.
 

easy-e

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Are you saying a player would take an intentional foul and not use the extension? That makes no sense. Just give him the extension.
Here is a good example. In the linked video, the player chose to just take a foul. If he had an extension available, should he be forced to use it? Maybe he uses the whole time to think of a better plan, but can't come up with anything.

1:55 into the video.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here is a good example. In the linked video, the player chose to just take a foul. If he had an extension available, should he be forced to use it? Maybe he uses the whole time to think of a better plan, but can't come up with anything.
Most players can touch the cue ball with their tip and take a foul without moving the cue ball significantly. If a player can do that, such a foul is better than letting time expire and losing his extension.
 

easy-e

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Most players can touch the cue ball with their tip and take a foul without moving the cue ball significantly. If a player can do that, such a foul is better than letting time expire and losing his extension.
Thanks for the response. I don't think they should lose their extension if time expires. I don't think it's too much to ask of a player to call the extension.
 
Top