wtf???????
- Thread starter getsome01
- Start date
Lol did Neil actually write this or was this one of the many edits done by a mod in this thread?
Sorry, not right before he shot as the rules state.
Now try to stay with me here, just maybe that's why the ref sided
with Danny and he was then only on two fouls. As the rules state.
Just wondered have you bothered to read the rules, or are you just
going by how you feel the rules ought to be.
Now try to stay with me here, just maybe that's why the ref sided
with Danny and he was then only on two fouls. As the rules state.
Just wondered have you bothered to read the rules, or are you just
going by how you feel the rules ought to be.
blah blah
Shoebat
three foul technicality (You can see the Harriman story and video are pasted at post #57, and Harriman starts posting about it at #69)
Last edited:
the ref sided with Danny because it's the rule, but I bet the ref was also walking away saying "goddamn, that Danny is a douche bag for pulling that move"
blah blah
Shoebat
omg. that's really fine tuning the language of the rule, right?
I only remember this whole thing because the rule was so sudden, and so very explicit about the timing of the warning. I hated the rule in the first place, because I like to warn after the 2nd foul occurs.
But no one is arguing about the definition of "approach," here, so where are you trying to go with that?
It seems like the dude has about a two second window to warn Danny about his foul situation. After that, he in no longer "approaching" the table.
"I could have been a jerk and tried to get away with a technicality…"
Oh, wait… but you still did.
He knew going to the table he was on two… if you foul the 3rd time, be a good sport. You lost the game. The rule comes from straight pool, where you may be on two fouls and not get back to the table for 45 min. In this case, Danny was well aware that he was on two. He was also well aware that there was a language barrier and that what he was saying was going to be lost in translation. He took advantage of it. It's within the rules, but morally wrong.
Oh, wait… but you still did.
He knew going to the table he was on two… if you foul the 3rd time, be a good sport. You lost the game. The rule comes from straight pool, where you may be on two fouls and not get back to the table for 45 min. In this case, Danny was well aware that he was on two. He was also well aware that there was a language barrier and that what he was saying was going to be lost in translation. He took advantage of it. It's within the rules, but morally wrong.
Last edited:
Let's pray that's not true for you!
Says the douche bag who continues to look like a fool. Explain that post about flipping coins again?
Moron.
Not at all. I am pointing out your assertion that the rule is written that way, and must be followed. If you must warn your opponent when he is "approaching the table", than warning him while he is sitting in his chair is clearly NOT following the rule. You are not allowed to interpret the rules to your liking, remember?
It's no coincidence that Bob finds himself in an argument nearly every time he is posting. He loves playing the douche.
and he plays it oh so well.
What if it was baseball World Series game 7 bottom of the 9th tie game 2 out batter hits a solo home run when rounding the bases misses second by 5 feet, after he crosses the plate, the pitcher appeals second base that the runner missed it, is it douchey to call him out or douchey to appeal it?
Not a big baseball fan, but I'll try. Douchieness by the pitcher, not doucher for the ump to make the technically correct call. It's his job, his hands are tied. Did I get it?
I feel it's not douchey of either, the pitcher seen the runner not follow the rules and called it. In the baseball world not many would say the pitcher is a douche but that the runner was an idiot for not touching the base like he should have. And followed the rules.
It's no ones fault for Danny's opponent not knowing and understanding the rules but the opponent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's no ones fault for Danny's opponent not knowing and understanding the rules but the opponent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited: