wow SVB forfeits match vs Alcano

[nine_ball6970]

This is a whole lot of caveats sir. The point of my statement is that, to word it in the manner in which you did, and then I in return did(which you answered, but in a 2 paragraph filled caveat), is unfair to either side of the argument because there are caveats in play here. It's not black and white as you're attempting to make it be.

IMO, there is plenty of blame to go around. Shane should have known the rules (if in fact they were modified WPA rules) and called the 10, Alcano acted unsportsmanlike (IMO) in that there was no advantage gained and no cheating took place, ref should've called the foul the first time it occured, not the 2nd, 5th, or 12th.

I am explaining why my answer is yes. I did not say it depends or anything else. If the rule is to call the 10 ball and I don't, then I should lose the game and my opponent should as well if he does the same thing.

I agree the ref should have called the foul the first time Shane failed to call his pocket. Even though, just because he doesn't call it the first time doesn't mean Shane should get a free pass for the remainder of the match.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Sometimes I will call every shot or at least point to the pocket, it's just a rhythm that you get into, it doesn't mean it's required to do it.

Jaden

Did you even watch the match? Your statement makes no sense compared to what Ronnie did.

 

[jojopiff]

I am explaining why my answer is yes. I did not say it depends or anything else. If the rule is to call the 10 ball and I don't, then I should lose the game and my opponent should as well if he does the same thing.

I agree the ref should have called the foul the first time Shane failed to call his pocket. Even though, just because he doesn't call it the first time doesn't mean Shane should get a free pass for the remainder of the match.

Never mind I guess. I'm not explaining myself properly. Good day to all...

 

[Jaden]

sure it does...

Did you even watch the match? Your statement makes no sense compared to what Ronnie did.

calling a ball when you don't need to happens ALL the time and just because someone calls the ten every time or every ball every time doesn't insinuate that everyone needs to.

For some it is making sure there is no question as to the intent, for others it's a rhythm...

I will often call the tenball just so there is no question...

Playing eightball I will always call the eightball just so there is no question. Would I tell my opponent after making an obvious eightball that he lost because he didn't call it??? Hell no, unless he didn't call it and he flubbed it so bad it went two rails and fell into the same pocket.

Should Shane and Biado have called the balls??? Yes, then there is no question.

Is it still chickenshit to take a win like that, absolutely.

Jaden

 

[Dockter]

calling a ball when you don't need to happens ALL the time and just because someone calls the ten every time or every ball every time doesn't insinuate that everyone needs to.

For some it is making sure there is no question as to the intent, for others it's a rhythm...

I will often call the tenball just so there is no question...

Playing eightball I will always call the eightball just so there is no question. Would I tell my opponent after making an obvious eightball that he lost because he didn't call it??? Hell no, unless he didn't call it and he flubbed it so bad it went two rails and fell into the same pocket.

Should Shane and Biado have called the balls??? Yes, then there is no question.

Is it still chickenshit to take a win like that, absolutely.

Jaden

But you know you have ran into that pool hall lawyer that will know every rule and take every rule literally and will use every technicallity to win even if you know that isn't the spirit of the rule. We all have if you shoot leagues or tournaments. I'm not calling a foul if someones hair brushes the ball or if they grab the cue ball out of the pocket and hand it to me or if they lay their cue on the table to tie their damn shoe.

 

[Neil]

But you know you have ran into that pool hall lawyer that will know every rule and take every rule literally and will use every technicallity to win even if you know that isn't the spirit of the rule. We all have if you shoot leagues or tournaments. I'm not calling a foul if someones hair brushes the ball or if they grab the cue ball out of the pocket and hand it to me or if they lay their cue on the table to tie their damn shoe.

You are talking regular play, not professional tournament play. Let's change it up a little and see what you do.... you are playing in a pro tournament, you have paid a grand or more to go there and play in it. Your opponent and you are both on the hill. Your opponent makes what you call a "technical" foul. The ref call him on it. Are you going to accept the rules, or are you going to disagree with it, go to the table and foul yourself so that your opponent doesn't get penalized by what you feel is a stupid rule?

If you would take the shot and not foul yourself to give it back, then you did the right thing. If you say, well, that's a different scenario... no, it isn't. If you want to claim doing something is the right thing, then you have to abide by it all the time.

 

[Dockter]

You are talking regular play, not professional tournament play. Let's change it up a little and see what you do.... you are playing in a pro tournament, you have paid a grand or more to go there and play in it. Your opponent and you are both on the hill. Your opponent makes what you call a "technical" foul. The ref call him on it. Are you going to accept the rules, or are you going to disagree with it, go to the table and foul yourself so that your opponent doesn't get penalized by what you feel is a stupid rule?

If you would take the shot and not foul yourself to give it back, then you did the right thing. If you say, well, that's a different scenario... no, it isn't. If you want to claim doing something is the right thing, then you have to abide by it all the time.

You are correct. It all comes down to the money on the line and the way the tournament is called and the consistency. If the ref is the one that actually calls the foul without any of the other players input and had been calling the foul from the start of the tournament I would take the foul. If I had been getting away with the very same foul or had my opponent and the ref now decides to do his job properly I would like to say I would pass it back as I think it's a bad call. I say I would like to think I would because everyone likes to think the best of themselves but I can't say 100% until I'm put in that type of situation. I've never once blamed Alcano for taking the win, I've blamed the inconstancy in the way the rules were applied.

Also if they were playing actual WPA rules it would be up to the opponent or the ref to ask which pocket he is going if there is any question on it.

Either way I can say this situation will never apply to me because I grew up from age 8 playing in a bar ( not that I was good my dad just liked to drink ) and I fell into the habit of pointing out every one of my shots be it obvious or not.

 

[Neil]

You are correct. It all comes down to the money on the line and the way the tournament is called and the consistency. If the ref is the one that actually calls the foul without any of the other players input and had been calling the foul from the start of the tournament I would take the foul. If I had been getting away with the very same foul or had my opponent and the ref now decides to do his job properly I would like to say I would pass it back as I think it's a bad call. I say I would like to think I would because everyone likes to think the best of themselves but I can't say 100% until I'm put in that type of situation. I've never once blamed Alcano for taking the win, I've blamed the inconstancy in the way the rules were applied.

Also if they were playing actual WPA rules it would be up to the opponent or the ref to ask which pocket he is going if there is any question on it.

Either way I can say this situation will never apply to me because I grew up from age 8 playing in a bar ( not that I was good my dad just liked to drink ) and I fell into the habit of pointing out every one of my shots be it obvious or not.

Now, the inconsistency part I totally agree with. The refs at this tournament were abhorrently incompetent. It was more like- who wants to be a ref? OK, here's a shirt for you to wear. And that was all that was done. All lot of this falls on the promoter or who ever got the refs. Great that they had one at every table, but, at least make sure they have a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Great that they had one at every table, but, at least make sure they have a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

It's really tough to get and train good refs. mong other things, the refs have to have enough confidence in their authority to say things like, "I'm sorry, Mr. Reyes, but that doesn't count in this tournament" to a national hero.

 

[Dockter]

It's really tough to get and train good refs. mong other things, the refs have to have enough confidence in their authority to say things like, "I'm sorry, Mr. Reyes, but that doesn't count in this tournament" to a national hero.

True, but then what is the point of them being at the table at all? Just a better seat to watch the action? I would rather have a ref or two running around that knew what they were doing then 100 refs that didn't have a clue.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Now, the inconsistency part I totally agree with. The refs at this tournament were abhorrently incompetent. It was more like- who wants to be a ref? OK, here's a shirt for you to wear. And that was all that was done. All lot of this falls on the promoter or who ever got the refs. Great that they had one at every table, but, at least make sure they have a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

Who was the TD ?
He should have had a separate meeting with the refs .

What's really worse is, the TD probably did not have a ref meeting AFTER the SVB incident .
Busta and Efren match showed Busta not calling the 10 at least once that I saw.

 

[Old Nine Baller]

**** it, someone's going on ignore for the first time in the twelve years I've posted on this site and I would suggest to the mods to look at some of the atagonists on this site. There are a few of them and they make it difficult for those of us who just like to contribute...

Jaden

It took you 3 1/2 hours to delete what you originally wrote? The thing about "I should s@ck your balls" for disagreeing with you and then you complain about me? Hypocrite.

Like I said go bully someone else.

ONB

 

[AtLarge]

... It is the same thing with telling an opponent he is on two either after he commits second foul or before he comes to the table for his next attempt to make a good hit. It shouldn't matter at what point you tell him he is on two fouls because you told your opponent.

No, the timing of the notification does matter. In 14.1, for example, it might be a l-o-n-g time between committing the second foul and coming to the table for the next inning. The rule is to make sure the player knows he is on two fouls just as he is starting his next inning. Here's the language from the WPA (world-standardized) rules:

"The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second."

Note the "when he comes to the table" language. If it is a non-refereed game, the opponent serves as the referee in that regard.

 

[pampi]

How did shane lose??? He is the BEST!!! I guess not in the Philippines.....

 

[nine_ball6970]

I just wish the rules would be the same for all of the games. It is stupid for slop to be acceptable in 9 ball but not in 8 ball or 10 ball. I think slop should not count in any game.

Here is a common one for all of the guys who are gentleman and would give opponent the game on a technicality. You are playing 9 ball. Score doesn't matter. You miss the 9 ball and it goes two rails into a different pocket. Do you accept the win even though you didn't make it in your intended pocket? Why is the scenario different playing 8 ball, 9 ball or 10 ball? Because the rules in one game say it is ok to win that way?

Seems like the "honorable" thing to do would be to give your opponent the win because you know you didn't make the ball in the pocket you intended to.

 

[nine_ball6970]

No, the timing of the notification does matter. In 14.1, for example, it might be a l-o-n-g time between committing the second foul and coming to the table for the next inning. The rule is to make sure the player knows he is on two fouls just as he is starting his next inning. Here's the language from the WPA (world-standardized) rules:

"The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second."

Note the "when he comes to the table" language. If it is a non-refereed game, the opponent serves as the referee in that regard.

I do not play 14-1 so I do not have a reference point. The argument was over a 9 ball game. Opponent is told he is on 2 after committing 2nd foul. I play safe. He makes a bad hit but doesn't lose the game because I didn't tell him after I played safe? This is in the span of one minute. There is no argument about whether or not he knows he is on 2 fouls.

 

[AtLarge]

I do not play 14-1 so I do not have a reference point. The argument was over a 9 ball game. Opponent is told he is on 2 after committing 2nd foul. I play safe. He makes a bad hit but doesn't lose the game because I didn't tell him after I played safe? This is in the span of one minute. There is no argument about whether or not he knows he is on 2 fouls.

Your post that I replied to (#416) said nothing about 9-ball, it was a general statement about when notification must be made that someone is on two fouls. Of course, I understand your point that it can be just a matter of a few seconds between innings sometimes. But where is the dividing line? What if it is 9-ball -- I commit my second foul, you tell me right away, you spend 5 minutes examining your next shot, then you decide to take a bathroom break, you return and look at your shot for a few minutes more, then you take a shot. 10 or 15 minutes might have passed since you notified me.

The WPA rules are written so that the 3-foul notification requirement applies uniformly to all games that involve an extra penalty for 3 consecutive fouls. It doesn't matter how much time passed between innings -- 10 seconds or 45 minutes (which is possible in 14.1). "The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls." The penalty for the 3rd foul is so significant that I think it is fine for the player to have to be warned right before he takes that next shot.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Your post that I replied to (#416) said nothing about 9-ball, it was a general statement about when notification must be made that someone is on two fouls. Of course, I understand your point that it can be just a matter of a few seconds between innings sometimes. But where is the dividing line? What if it is 9-ball -- I commit my second foul, you tell me right away, you spend 5 minutes examining your next shot, then you decide to take a bathroom break, you return and look at your shot for a few minutes more, then you take a shot. 10 or 15 minutes might have passed since you notified me.

The WPA rules are written so that the 3-foul notification requirement applies uniformly to all games that involve an extra penalty for 3 consecutive fouls. It doesn't matter how much time passed between innings -- 10 seconds or 45 minutes (which is possible in 14.1). "The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls." The penalty for the 3rd foul is so significant that I think it is fine for the player to have to be warned right before he takes that next shot.

Oh I understand your point and agree with you. It is a slippery slope concerning some rules in pool. That is why I think you should either have to call all shots or call none of them. An "obvious" shot in one situation may not be "obvious" in a second situation. Unless it is a bank then it is usually obvious after you shoot the ball. Also I don't think you should have to be asked what your intentions are before you shoot most shots. I could see that as a huge shark move. Could you imagine if your opponent asked for clarification as to which pocket you plan to make the ball before you shoot every single time?

 

[timothysoong]

I don't blame shane for that, thats clearly stated in the wpa site.

9.5 Call Shots & Pocketing Balls
Whenever the shooter is attempting to pocket a ball (except the break) he is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant.

For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.

 

[smoooothstroke]

Ridiculous.

I didn't see Shane "loose his cool" or anything,just casually unscrewed.Good response by SVB IMO.

Completely horrendous rules and/or referee play.