wtf???????

[FranCrimi]

Because of that technicality, the WPBA changed their version of that rule to where the player must warn his opponent he is on 2 fouls at any time before the opponent approaches the table.

It takes all of the potential drama out of the rule.

 

[RFranklin]

Clarification

Thanks Fran. I stand corrected if the WPA is that specific. I am pretty sure I wouldnt want my name next to an amedment like that but hey, I like to be able to sleep at night. Technicalities like this are the reason that contracts in the US are all 20pages because people are always looking for an angle if they dont get their way, even if they know it isnt right.

 

[Rasputin]

Wow. A funny video. I have never seen such a bad sportsmanship in any sport whatsoever. And I watch soccer.

It is one thing to win a game by abusing your opponents poor knowledge of the rules. But to give an interview afterwards about how you think you were in the right, wow. This guy is a proper douche, big time.

But then again, this is pool billiards. I guess we are all more or less douchebags every once in a while.

 

[itsfroze]

----------------------

 

[RFranklin]

Touche

I am not looking for a techicality because I didnt get what I wanted. I WAS WRONG. Happy?

Now the rules have change so we dont have to see this kind of douchebaggery.

 

[gentleman789]

Come on guys let's be real here...how can you say it's perfectly fine what he did?

Even if he acted within the rules it was unsportsmanlike behaviour in my eyes...he obviously KNEW he was on 2 fouls before he made the shot...

Even if the rule says he has to be told as he approaches the table...try to use common sense...the rule is written like that to prevent that somebody forgets he is actually on 2 fouls which was not the case in this situation...

I don't blame Danny though for it was at an important point in the match and money in pool is rare...and then again it is acting within the rules indeed...maybe there are other pros who would act exactly the same...

That exactly shows pool's problem...if there was money in pool like in golf...I bet you nobody would ever do such a thing...that's for sure!

 

[RFranklin]

Fun Thought

Not here to kick the dead horse but close your eyes and imagine if he had done that to Hatch... Or better yet Earl. Holy cow. Now that would be interview worthy. :grin:

 

[PETROBOY]

Its not DHs fault he followed the rules and that is what he is sapoused to do, we cant say he souldnt have followed that rule and follow others, the problem lies with the rules themselves they should be a player should be told anytime from 2nd foul happens to before he shoots next shot.

 

[itsfroze]

Not here to kick the dead horse but close your eyes and imagine if he had done that to Hatch... Or better yet Earl. Holy cow. Now that would be interview worthy. :grin:

They know the rules (like their supposed to) :thumbup: and would never make that mistake.

 

[RFranklin]

I Said Imagine

C'mon. Give me somthing. Earls head would have exploded like that scene from scanners. :grin:

 

[itsfroze]

Because of that technicality, the WPBA changed their version of that rule to where the player must warn his opponent he is on 2 fouls at any time before the opponent approaches the table.

It takes all of the potential drama out of the rule.

The above is from post #21
So I guess the Wpa agrees with you.

Its not DHs fault he followed the rules and that is what he is sapoused to do, we cant say he souldnt have followed that rule and follow others, the problem lies with the rules themselves they should be a player should be told anytime from 2nd foul happens to before he shoots next shot.

 

[itsfroze]

Because of that technicality, the WPBA changed their version of that rule to where the player must warn his opponent he is on 2 fouls at any time before the opponent approaches the table.

It takes all of the potential drama out of the rule.

Did they change the rule just for 9-Ball? Or Straight Pool also?

Because in Straight Pool someone might get a second foul an then his opponent might run a 100.
So if he was told before his opponent shot (and ran 100) it would be a long time and he might forget,
which was the basis of the rule in the first place I think?

 

[Neil]

Wow. A funny video. I have never seen such a bad sportsmanship in any sport whatsoever. And I watch soccer.

It is one thing to win a game by abusing your opponents poor knowledge of the rules. But to give an interview afterwards about how you think you were in the right, wow. This guy is a proper douche, big time.

But then again, this is pool billiards. I guess we are all more or less douchebags every once in a while.

Maybe you need to watch it again. Seems like you missed a lot of it.

1. He didn't ask for the interview.
2. He didn't know what Samm was going to ask.
3. If he wanted to be unsportsmanlike, he wouldn''t have explained the rule to his opponent.
4. The rule was worded as it was because of 14.1. If you are on two, and your opponent tells you such, then he gets up there and runs 100 or more, you are very likely to forget that you are on two. So, the rule prevented that by stating that you have to tell your opponent when he approaches the table. Now that 14.1 is played near as much as 9 or ten ball, the rule has been changed according to what Fran stated.
5. A true professional abides by the rules and knows the rules. He doesn't just skirt them because he doesn't like them or understand why they are in place.

To call someone a douche for acting like a pro is way out of line.

 

[corvette1340]

lol, commendable behavior. I mean, does anyone really expect anything more here? It's not like it's golf and the participants behave in a gentlemanly manner. The opponent who may have understood English or maybe not, clearly did not tell Danny that he was on 2 a few moments after he actually already told him he was on 2.

I'm sure Danny had a million different things running through his mind since he's a small fry short of a happy meal anyway, so he obviously needed the reminder a few seconds later to reiterate the fact he was on 2.

For those of you that are a little green in the gambling world, this is known as an angle shoot. Perfectly acceptable if you are in fact a douche bag, not so much if you want to be respected by your peers and fans.

 

[RFranklin]

Deflect, DeflectPrincipalBrought Me

lol, commendable behavior. I mean, does anyone really expect aAKything more here? It's not like it's golf and the participants behave in a gentlemanly manner. The opponent who may have understood English or maybe not, clearly did not tell Danny that he was on 2 a few moments after he actually already told him he was on 2.

I'm sure Danny had a million different things running through his mind since he's a small fry short of a happy meal anyway, so he obviously needed the reminder a few seconds later to reiterate the fact he was on 2.

For those of you that are a little green in the gambling world, this is known as an angle shoot. Perfectly acceptable if you are in fact a douche bag, not so much if Ryou want to be respected by your peers and fans.

Dammit, You Brought Me Back In. That Was My Point, Plus The Interview Looked Like A Third Grade Teacher ASking A Kid An Uncomfortable Question. Deflect, Deflect Deflect, Maybe I Should Have Done This Or That, My Buddy WOuldnt Have Done The Right Thing Either So Why Should I?

 

[PETROBOY]

Maybe you need to watch it again. Seems like you missed a lot of it.

1. He didn't ask for the interview.
2. He didn't know what Samm was going to ask.
3. If he wanted to be unsportsmanlike, he wouldn''t have explained the rule to his opponent.
4. The rule was worded as it was because of 14.1. If you are on two, and your opponent tells you such, then he gets up there and runs 100 or more, you are very likely to forget that you are on two. So, the rule prevented that by stating that you have to tell your opponent when he approaches the table. Now that 14.1 is played near as much as 9 or ten ball, the rule has been changed according to what Fran stated.
5. A true professional abides by the rules and knows the rules. He doesn't just skirt them because he doesn't like them or understand why they are in place.

To call someone a douche for acting like a pro is way out of line.

I think it was only changed for the ladies tour the wpa still has it the old way. I agree you cant harp at a guy for following the rules

 

[FranCrimi]

Did they change the rule just for 9-Ball? Or Straight Pool also?

Because in Straight Pool someone might get a second foul an then his opponent might run a 100.
So if he was told before his opponent shot (and ran 100) it would be a long time and he might forget,
which was the basis of the rule in the first place I think?

The rule amendment applied to 14.1 as well. The question that had to be decided was: Who should bear the responsibility of having to remember --- the player who was on 2 fouls or the player who wasn't? The conclusion was that the burden should be on the person who committed the fouls, so it should be their responsibility to remember it once they have been told, even if there was a 100 ball run in between, and the person who didn't commit the fouls shouldn't have to bear the responsibility and possible distraction of remembering.

This was the WPBA, not the WPA as far as I know. I made the suggestion to the WPA back when I was on the board of directors, however, if I can recall, they didn't agree with me at the time and the rule wasn't changed.

 

[Neil]

Yes. At AZB, playing by the rules can be immoral when members who have, in their self-centered egotism, designated themselves as morally superior. However, if a player they like breaks those same additional moral rules which they claim take precedence over the actual rules, well- that's a different story. In such a case there surely is an explanation why one of their favorite players did what he did or didn't do what others are required to by their personal additional rules.

Is that an adequate explanation?

That about sums it up.

 

[itsfroze]

Originally Posted by Bob Dixon View Post
Yes. At AZB, playing by the rules can be immoral when members who have, in their self-centered egotism, designated themselves as morally superior. However, if a player they like breaks those same additional moral rules which they claim take precedence over the actual rules, well- that's a different story. In such a case there surely is an explanation why one of their favorite players did what he did or didn't do what others are required to by their personal additional rules.

Is that an adequate explanation?
---------- I 'll go with what he said ^^^^^ Above ^^^^^

Your unbelievable, you just don't want to admit you're wrong here.
Even when you did, then you turned around and backtracked. :grin-square:
----------

Deflect, DeflectPrincipalBrought Me

Dammit, You Brought Me Back In. That Was My Point, Plus The Interview Looked Like A Third Grade Teacher ASking A Kid An Uncomfortable Question. Deflect, Deflect Deflect, Maybe I Should Have Done This Or That, My Buddy WOuldnt Have Done The Right Thing Either So Why Should I?

 

[itsfroze]

The rule amendment applied to 14.1 as well. The question that had to be decided was: Who should bear the responsibility of having to remember --- the player who was on 2 fouls or the player who wasn't? The conclusion was that the burden should be on the person who committed the fouls, so it should be their responsibility to remember it once they have been told, even if there was a 100 ball run in between, and the person who didn't commit the fouls shouldn't have to bear the responsibility and possible distraction of remembering.

This was the WPBA, not the WPA as far as I know. I made the suggestion to the WPA back when I was on the board of directors, however, if I can recall, they didn't agree with me at the time and the rule wasn't changed.

Thanks for the info Fran, and yes I meant EDIT I MEANT THE WPA (WORLD POOL BILLIARD ASSOCIATION)