wtf???????
- Thread starter getsome01
- Start date
Now that's funny!
Bottom line
The rules are the rules. But if you listen to Danny towards the end of the interview he says "any player would have taken Advantage".
Idk about any player. I'm not a fan of Danny but he is correct bc the rule is the rule. However could he have earned some respect by taking the loss? Yes, but that wouldn't have gotten him closer to the cash.
In a game where there's not much money to be made some players choose to sell their integrity for a cheap price. Can't blame the guy. Can't really credit him either. Break even thread if you ask me. Lol
The rules are the rules. But if you listen to Danny towards the end of the interview he says "any player would have taken Advantage".
Idk about any player. I'm not a fan of Danny but he is correct bc the rule is the rule. However could he have earned some respect by taking the loss? Yes, but that wouldn't have gotten him closer to the cash.
In a game where there's not much money to be made some players choose to sell their integrity for a cheap price. Can't blame the guy. Can't really credit him either. Break even thread if you ask me. Lol
not backtracking
Its Froze, I was replying to the post above and was not back tracking. My opinion was that he is a douche and I stand by it. Honestly, I am not a likes to fight guy, but someone acknowledged that they were on two, I hooked them, they fouled again and then pulled that..... I would lay him out, put my cue up and wait for the cops. It is a chicken **** technicality and you know it.
Its Froze, I was replying to the post above and was not back tracking. My opinion was that he is a douche and I stand by it. Honestly, I am not a likes to fight guy, but someone acknowledged that they were on two, I hooked them, they fouled again and then pulled that..... I would lay him out, put my cue up and wait for the cops. It is a chicken **** technicality and you know it.
Corvette is the teacher.
But don't you all worry, once this thread is dead and forgotten, Danny will bump it out of nowhere with some crazy ass response.
But don't you all worry, once this thread is dead and forgotten, Danny will bump it out of nowhere with some crazy ass response.
Just ONE more reason to put 1 foul in the trash and bring back REAL 9 ball.....2 foul pushout!!!
ps
Dumb rule. I can run up and hit the cue ball in 3 seconds before he can say ' ur on 2'!!! This rule is as bad as being able to clean a ball during a game!?!? Really DUMB!
Last edited:
I had a guy try to pull that crap on me one time....... I was less than impressed with his attempt. He paid up when he realized he wasn't going to win any "game" that we would have played that night.....
Chuck
RBC
Deceased
As has been stated, the initial reason for the rule was the time that can happen in 14.1.
It's not only possible, but happens quite often at high level competition that a player will commit the second foul and then have his opponent make a high run before he returns to the table.
Now, I still think the rule is wrong. The women have it right. The one who has committed two fouls should be the one who is responsible to know that he has committed two fouls. I'm of the belief that he shouldn't really need to be notified at all. When the foul occurs, it needs to be acknowledged that it was a foul by both players. But the offending player should be responsible to keep up with his actions.
Now, what Danny did was not technically wrong. An argument can be made that, at the professional level, the rules should be followed exactly. If the tournament was an amateur tournament, then it would be different.
The fact is that Danny was in a bad spot. A bad rule forced him to be a bad sport. I know that I would never pull the move that Danny did. If he knew he was on 2, then he should have acted accordingly. But, I won't ever be in a professional level event either.
Royce
It's not only possible, but happens quite often at high level competition that a player will commit the second foul and then have his opponent make a high run before he returns to the table.
Now, I still think the rule is wrong. The women have it right. The one who has committed two fouls should be the one who is responsible to know that he has committed two fouls. I'm of the belief that he shouldn't really need to be notified at all. When the foul occurs, it needs to be acknowledged that it was a foul by both players. But the offending player should be responsible to keep up with his actions.
Now, what Danny did was not technically wrong. An argument can be made that, at the professional level, the rules should be followed exactly. If the tournament was an amateur tournament, then it would be different.
The fact is that Danny was in a bad spot. A bad rule forced him to be a bad sport. I know that I would never pull the move that Danny did. If he knew he was on 2, then he should have acted accordingly. But, I won't ever be in a professional level event either.
Royce
Let's try this another way.
1) Please list all rules that should be followed.
2) Please list all rules that should be ignored.
3) Please list all playing rules you will be
called a douche for following.
4) If a ball is blocking my shot and I just walk over
and move it out of the way, and you call a foul.
Should you be called a douche for following the
rules? (Just trying to clarify)
5) If a rule is deemed one that should be ignored
does that depend on who you are playing at the
moment. (Should the validity of rules change
depending on your opponents prospective?)
6) Maybe we could just let the fans make a ruling
anytime there's a dispute. (and just hope their not
betting against you, while you wait for their ruling.)
Or better yet maybe there shouldn't be any set rules at all.
You and your opponent just discuss how you want to play
before your match starts.
Then if either of you doesn't like something your opponent
does you just lay them out. How many think this is a good
solution? (I know of at least one)
1) Please list all rules that should be followed.
2) Please list all rules that should be ignored.
3) Please list all playing rules you will be
called a douche for following.
4) If a ball is blocking my shot and I just walk over
and move it out of the way, and you call a foul.
Should you be called a douche for following the
rules? (Just trying to clarify)
5) If a rule is deemed one that should be ignored
does that depend on who you are playing at the
moment. (Should the validity of rules change
depending on your opponents prospective?)
6) Maybe we could just let the fans make a ruling
anytime there's a dispute. (and just hope their not
betting against you, while you wait for their ruling.)
Or better yet maybe there shouldn't be any set rules at all.
You and your opponent just discuss how you want to play
before your match starts.
Then if either of you doesn't like something your opponent
does you just lay them out. How many think this is a good
solution? (I know of at least one)
That's a good post. I think most of us agree it's a bad rule and should be re worded but really how often does it come up? DH followed the rules that we have and nothing bad should be said about him he went past what most ppl would have done and told the other guy to warn him when he gets back to the table, it's not his fault the other guy doesn't speak English well. There are to many times on here ppl ask a rule question and lot of guys say it should be this or that and my opinion it's is this and even after the rule is posted for all to see they still say the opposite. We should all be following the same rules as they are written! Not just the ones that make us happy at the time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This kind of reminds me of when Earl was playing Charlie Williams with a referee. Earl moved a ball and everyone saw it but the ref. Since the ref didn't call a foul, it was still Earl's shot. I remember people Hating on Earl for that, but it seems no different from what happened here.
Earl moving a ball was illegal even though the ref didn't see it.
Of coarse everyone getting on Earl for it, are assuming he saw it.
Nothing Danny did was illegal, in fact Danny told his opponent
you need to tell me I'm on two after you shoot and before I shoot.
How is that the same?
Of coarse everyone getting on Earl for it, are assuming he saw it.
Nothing Danny did was illegal, in fact Danny told his opponent
you need to tell me I'm on two after you shoot and before I shoot.
How is that the same?
6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls
If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games such as eight ball do not include this rule.
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.
I'm confused by this rule.
The rule describes this as a "serious" foul.
Are there non-serious fouls?
Are there varying degrees applied to a foul?
Just wondering why this adjective is applied to the rule.
If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games such as eight ball do not include this rule.
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.
I'm confused by this rule.
The rule describes this as a "serious" foul.
Are there non-serious fouls?
Are there varying degrees applied to a foul?
Just wondering why this adjective is applied to the rule.
Yes some fouls you just lose your turn, such bad hit, scratch in pocket...
Third foul you lose the game. That is serious!
Yes, serious fouls cause loss of game, not just ball in hand. Another example would be unsportmanslike conduct; unscrewing your cue; and there are probably a few others.
Because it was the ref's job to call the fouls, not Earl's. It was legal for Earl to keep shooting, so he did. What's the difference? They both took advantage of the situation presented to them.
Because when you do something wrong or illegal and don't fess up to it just because you weren't "caught" that makes you a grade A douche. Earl knew it, he's fessed up to doing that sort of thing more than once (after the fact of course in more of a boasting look at me im a big douche manner)
I don't think what Danny did was much better. He hid behind a technicality which is almost as bad. He knew he had a game losing hit, but shrugged it off.
Last edited: