yesterday (9/10) was a sad day for billiards!

[Neil]

Here's the bottom line.

Earl is a Professional pool player playing in a world championship (even tho calling it a world championship is debatable).

Yes his shot and intentions were clear and obvious, but HE verbally chose to call a ball and called the wrong one.....Key word here is "Wrong" that qualifies as a "Mistake". (When you make a Mistake like that it is no longer your turn to shoot I.e. WHEN HE DID THE SAME SHIT EARLIER IN THE MATCH) When called on his mistake he then tries to and effectively does LIE! about it. (That's called cheating)

The lack of evidence via the recording of the live stream forced the TD to make a call.

The Ref was completely incompetent and should not have been allowed to oversee this match.

EARL IS A CHEATER......BOTTOM LINE!!!!

Had the video that we all have seen (taken by a spectator) surfaced during the review of the shot by the TD. He would have called a FOUL!! because that's what Earl did....HE FOULED!!

Jaysons' reaction to the shot was justified because of the incompetence of the Ref

His later actions were not ......but I probably would have done the same if I was cheated out of a world title too.

It's amazing, and sad, at just how many people don't bother to read all or even most of the posts to gather proper information to make a decision. Yet, they feel qualified to call others cheaters when it's obvious they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Before making your judgments, try learning just what the rules actually are, and then maybe you will see who was actually in the wrong here.

 

[westcoast]

WC, it would be quite difficult to name one person in pool, who has not gone out of their way, more than Mr Srickland, to earn all the unfavorable 'bias' they will ever receive!..There is not even a close second!

I have heard him say, more than once, to a gallery of quiet paying spectators.."You people don't even deserve to watch me play"!..How can anyone excuse that, by saying it is caused by his 'mental problems'?..He is not illiterate, he knows very well what he's doing! (its called 'inciting' a disturbance)

PS..Earl has the same problem Mike Tyson had, when he tried to chew off Holyfields ear..He just can't deal with losing!..Being a 'good sport' doesn't even enter into it..He could care less what people think of him!

I'm not justifying or excusing his past behavior.

What I am saying is that he has provoked such negative emotion about him that it is making people biased in judging this specific incident.

Even if he has been a jerk in the past, this incident such be judged objectively- not based on prior judgments about Earl due to past misconduct.

 

[Chopdoc]

i will start off by saying i watched the video where you can hear earl call the 2 ball. regardless of what he was aiming or looking at. HE CALLED THE 2! shouldve been jason's shot! if or when you play with the antics that earl does your gonna be called out like that. im sure if jason were playing a darren or mika he wouldnt have said anything. i met mr shaw last weekend and he was a true gentleman not once was there drama in one of his matches. i used to root for earl but after yesterday i feel different. if we as a pool playing community want this game to grow and improve players like mr strickland shouldnt be given the time of day.

Just popped in here.

Earl called one ball and shot another?


Sorry...foul. Screwed up. Lost your turn at the table.




.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you lower the bar.

In the history of true 14.1 championships, there were refs at every table (wearing white gloves to wipe the balls) who stood at the tables and called every shot out loud and watched every hit. There was never a question of what ball was intended.

If tournament organizers don't want to spend the money to pay the refs to do what they're supposed to do in a 14.1 championship, then at least they should do it from the quarter-finals ---> on.

It would have been nice if there had been scorekeepers, and they probably could have gotten volunteers, but that is a fairly large additional effort.

By Saturday they were down to two tables and they had two officials. It is too bad that they didn't have a ref on the table until the final match.

It is not easy to be a good ref at 14.1 -- I've seen a lot of bad ones.

 

[Bob Jewett]

"The official rule : If the Player or Referee (as in traditional 14.1 matches) calls the incorrect ball number on an obvious shot, the obvious shot and pocket called supersedes the mistaken numeric call." *in the case with Mr. Strickland's shot, it was obvious to the referee as well as the entire audience he was attempting to shoot the 10ball. He also indicated the shot with his cue beforehand during video replay. Furthermore, the mistaken ball called was the 2ball , which looked unplayable inside the stack with no obvious pocket. Furthermore, the earlier call should have also been in favor of Mr. Strickland on the first obvious shot call. *3 experienced 14.1 experts and officials unanimously agreed on all the above. * We would like to add that we encourage good sportsmanship first and gentlemanly conduct by all players. This includes the "Gentleman's Call" rule on obvious shots.

Wedge

At the players' meeting it was announced that the WPA World Standardized Rules were in effect except that the stalemate rule was replaced by the older "two bumps each" rule. The WPA rules are on-line and the specific rule to look at is http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#1.6 Unfortunately, the wording is somewhat ambiguous.

The quoted rule above seems to be a clarification issued by Dragon Promotions.

The intent of WSR Rule 1.6 was to cover the case when there was no actual call from the player in a shot with complications, such as an obvious combination. Another case would be where the ref is not in line to see which of two close balls is being played and the player shoots the one not called by the ref. It was not intended to cover the case of an incorrect but clear call from the player.

 

[Bob Jewett]

And lastly, if there is a referee at the table, he must enforce all of the rules -- even some "nitty" rule that the majority of the audience would not enforce back at home in a league match.

 

[deanoc]

earl deserves anything he gets
in this case justice

roberto de vivcinzio lost the masters because he signed a wrong scorecard

i would be very exact with earl whereas i would be very flexible with efren or for that matter any filipino

if you call the 2 then make the 2

 

[Magog30]

The facts are clear

1. Earl called the 2 ball, didn't pocket it but pocketed the 10 ball
2. Shaw called him on the "illegally pocketed 10 ball"
3. The ref knew the rules, if called ball not made in called pocket then inning is over.
4. The ref Reviewed the evidence and then Lied, calling the 2 ball call "hearsay" giving the match to Earl. If the ref is hearing impaired he should have admitted it.

It is worth noting that Earl knew he called the wrong ball by the reaction he had right after Shaw called him on it.
The ref should be barred. It is one thing to get a call wrong, another to deliberately cheat. He sounded like a lawyer trying to sway the crowd, trying to justify his bias. The ref is to be an impartial enforcer of the rules.

 

[Neil]

1. Earl called the 2 ball, didn't pocket it but pocketed the 10 ball
2. Shaw called him on the "illegally pocketed 10 ball"
3. The ref knew the rules, if called ball not made in called pocket then inning is over.
4. The ref Reviewed the evidence and then Lied, calling the 2 ball call "hearsay" giving the match to Earl. If the ref is hearing impaired he should have admitted it.

It is worth noting that Earl knew he called the wrong ball by the reaction he had right after Shaw called him on it.
The ref should be barred. It is one thing to get a call wrong, another to deliberately cheat. He sounded like a lawyer trying to sway the crowd, trying to justify his bias. The ref is to be an impartial enforcer of the rules.

To you too, learn the rules and read other posts before you make such statements. All your posts does is make you look like just another Earl hater.

 

[Nostroke]

1. Earl called the 2 ball, didn't pocket it but pocketed the 10 ball
2. Shaw called him on the "illegally pocketed 10 ball"
3. The ref knew the rules, if called ball not made in called pocket then inning is over.
4. The ref reviewed the evidence and then lied, calling the 2 ball call "hearsay" giving the match to earl. If the ref is hearing impaired he should have admitted it.

It is worth noting that earl knew he called the wrong ball by the reaction he had right after shaw called him on it.
The ref should be barred. It is one thing to get a call wrong, another to deliberately cheat. He sounded like a lawyer trying to sway the crowd, trying to justify his bias. The ref is to be an impartial enforcer of the rules.

wow-smh.......

 

[Koop]

Earl was wrong...he's a cheater
Jayson was wrong....trying to win on a technicality

I think it's safe to say everyone has their opinions and they obviously aren't changing them. But please, continue to create new threads with hundreds of comments saying the same thing over and over.

Rinse and repeat

Oh, and my opinion, because it really matters is this. Who gives a flying f*ck unless you're Jayson or Earl. The tournament director and refs screwed the pooch on this one.

 

[Bigb'scues]

It's amazing, and sad, at just how many people don't bother to read all or even most of the posts to gather proper information to make a decision. Yet, they feel qualified to call others cheaters when it's obvious they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Before making your judgments, try learning just what the rules actually are, and then maybe you will see who was actually in the wrong here.

I was at the event and witnessed what happen with my own eyes and ears!! Listen to what I said!! If the video of Earl CALLING THE TWO! that we have all seen was shown to the TD at the time of the decision Jayson Shaw would have been in the finals. Plain and simple ....Earl did cheat by LYING THRU HIS TEETH!!!! What don't you understand about that tuff guy?

 

[Bigb'scues]

Lol.....................

 

[Neil]

I was at the event and witnessed what happen with my own eyes and ears!! Listen to what I said!! If the video of Earl CALLING THE TWO! that we have all seen was shown to the TD at the time of the decision Jayson Shaw would have been in the finals. Plain and simple ....Earl did cheat by LYING THRU HIS TEETH!!!! What don't you understand about that tuff guy?

Big deal, you were there. We saw the exact same thing on video. Point is, you still don't even know what the rules are! Try learning them first before you comment.

 

[GideonF]

At the players' meeting it was announced that the WPA World Standardized Rules were in effect except that the stalemate rule was replaced by the older "two bumps each" rule. The WPA rules are on-line and the specific rule to look at is http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#1.6 Unfortunately, the wording is somewhat ambiguous.

The quoted rule above seems to be a clarification issued by Dragon Promotions.

The intent of WSR Rule 1.6 was to cover the case when there was no actual call from the player in a shot with complications, such as an obvious combination. Another case would be where the ref is not in line to see which of two close balls is being played and the player shoots the one not called by the ref. It was not intended to cover the case of an incorrect but clear call from the player.

Bob,

Thanks for weighing in on this. I would have interpreted the rule differently (such that if the intention is clear to the referee that is all that matters and a "miscall" does nothing). For example, if playing with those god-awful skittle-coloured balls a player says "6 ball" and the seven is clearly the only ball he could mean, then the shot is good. But, I respect your view and you clearly know a lot about both the rules and 14.1.

However, I don't understand why you say 1.6 applies where "the ref is not in line to see which of two close balls is being played and the player shoots the one not called by the ref" but not in Earl's case. The player hears the ref call a ball he isn't shooting and either doesn't notice or doesn't correct him. How is that different? The 2 ball has been called in either case and the "wrong" ball has been made. If the rule is the "call" is all that matters when there has been a call, the result should be the same no matter who made the wrong call because the responsibility remains with the player to ensure the correct call is made.

 

[GideonF]

And lastly, if there is a referee at the table, he must enforce all of the rules -- even some "nitty" rule that the majority of the audience would not enforce back at home in a league match.

I agree with this, but I also think there should not be any [/B ] "nitty" rules. For example, the rule requiring a call of the obvious straight in 10 ball (as in SVB's match against Alcano).

Rule sets should be written to ensure that people play the game fairly and, in the case of call shot games, that shooter makes the intended ball in the intended pocket. They should not be written to give an advantage to the nitty or to take advantage of mistakes irrelevant to the outcome of game.

As an aside, but perhaps most importantly, rules should also be written clearly so there is no ambiguity. So, whatever the rule SHOULD be, the rules should be revised to make it clear what happens in this situation.

 

[john coloccia]

I agree with this, but I also think there should not be any [/B ] "nitty" rules. For example, the rule requiring a call of the obvious straight in 10 ball (as in SVB's match against Alcano).

Rule sets should be written to ensure that people play the game fairly and, in the case of call shot games, that shooter makes the intended ball in the intended pocket. They should not be written to give an advantage to the nitty or to take advantage of mistakes irrelevant to the outcome of game.

I think the rule already is written like that, isn't it? I'm surprised that Bob would have ruled differently. Surely an alert ref would have at least asked for clarification.

 

[Neil]

I think the rule already is written like that, isn't it? I'm surprised that Bob would have ruled differently. Surely an alert ref would have at least asked for clarification.

It is written like that, and Shaw should have asked for a clarification. The two obviously was not the ball Earl was shooting at and intending to make.

No matter how much people hate Earl, Shaw is the one that blew it.

 

[GideonF]

It is written like that, and Shaw should have asked for a clarification. The two obviously was not the ball Earl was shooting at and intending to make.

No matter how much people hate Earl, Shaw is the one that blew it.

Ignoring for the moment Bob's expert and contrary view, if we assume that the rule is that obvious intent is what matters, the problem is that this is not how it was called earlier in the same match and indeed not how it was explained to Jayson when it blew up.

If they had said the first time that intent is all that matters and Earl keeps shooting, I think it would have been a non-issue. Indeed, I think that if the TD the second time had asked "was the intent obvious?" and been told "yes" and then said "then the shot is good, and if the ref ruled differently earlier he was wrong" then I also think the situation would have been much less explosive. The problem is that the impression was that the "call" is what mattered, not the intent, and then the issue of Earl's "honesty" comes into play and blew it all up.

I think it is the ref that blew it. I also think that no matter what was called earlier, if the TD got involved he should make the right call, whatever that is.

 

[peter_gunn]

It is written like that, and Shaw should have asked for a clarification.

When? When Earl was already down on shot? lol
Imagine he ask why you suggesting, and Earl in the same time shoot and mid that 10 ball



Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using Tapatalk