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

[LWD]

Here are the facts:

Earl clearly intended to shoot the ten
Early misspoke and called the two

My opinions:

Jayson jumping on Earl's misstatement to claim a foul was chickenshit
Earl's denials that he misspoke was chickenshit

The problem is the RULE IS WRONG. Here is what the rule should be:

Player does not have to call ball if intention is clear (current rule)
If intention is not clear, player must call ball (current rule)
If a player makes the wrong ball it is a foul (current rule)
If the player calls the wrong ball but his intention is clear, and he shoots the intended ball, the intention controls (new rule)

This change in the rule would eliminate a misspeak or a misidentification of a ball and avoid the chickenshit actions of both Earl and Jason.

The reason we have the current rule is because the problem it is trying to address is that a player's intention may not be clear, especially if he is shooting into a mess of balls. So the idea is that by requiring him to verbally state his intention should avoid any ambiguity. But it doesn't, because there is a parallel ambiguity in the other direction, as in this case, because a player can actually misstate his own intention (by simply making a verbal mental error or by misidentifying a ball). (BTW, this may become an increasing problem with the increasing use of the Cyclop tv balls with their confusing colors.)

In any case, the whole point of the rule is to clearly indentify the shooter's INTENTION. So where the intention is clear (as it was in this case) the intention trumps the call. Where the intention is not clear from the shot, then the call trumps any claimed intention. Simple change in the rule to address both sides of the potential ambiguities.

 

[mantis99]

In a game of true warriors , the foul would have been pointed out.Earl admits he messed up and Jayson turns play back to Earl so he can continue his run as he obviously made a small mistake.

Instead,Jayson jumps up like a douche,Earl lies,they argue like fools waiting for the decision,the ref blows the call,and Jayson then quits like a crying ass baby while MFing Earl out the door.Stay classy San Diego!

Bar league apa garbage at it's finest.

I think this is the best post I have read on this subject.

If the call goes Jason's way, he wins because Earl made a mistake in saying wat ball he was looking at, vs actually beating him at pool That being said, Earl shouldn't be lying about it either.

A pretty sad day indeed on all parts.

 

[AtLarge]

I wish people (many, many in these threads) would quit calling it a foul if you make a different ball than the one you call.

It's just a missed shot, and loss of inning, not a foul. If you call the 6-ball in the side pocket, then turn around and bump the 4-ball to a rail, it is not a foul. You just didn't make the called shot. If you call the 9-ball in the corner pocket on a thin cut, shoot and miss the 9-ball entirely but knock in the 3-ball, it is not a foul. You just missed.

[This is entirely apart from the debate on following what was called vs. what was intended.]

 

[Nostroke]

Just because you say something that is incorrect DOES NOT MEAN YOU LIED.

In a softball game 35+ years ago i tagged up and came home safe on a fly ball. The other side appealed and i was called out. I swore to everyone and knew i had waited til the ball was caught before i left for home.

Then 2 of my own teammates told me i left early. I would have bet $10k to one dollar i left after the catch but apparently i didnt. I was not lying. To this day I dont know why i was positive about something that wasn't true (apparently) but i was.

Don't throw the 'L' word around so easily.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Surely an alert ref would have at least asked for clarification.

There was in effect no ref at the table. There were officials nearby. It was different for the finals.

 

[Bigb'scues]

Just because you say something that is incorrect DOES NOT MEAN YOU LIED.

In a softball game 35+ years ago i tagged up and came home safe on a fly ball. The other side appealed and i was called out. I swore to everyone and knew i had waited til the ball was caught before i left for home.

Then 2 of my own teammates told me i left early. I would have bet $10k to one dollar i left after the catch but apparently i didnt. I was not lying. To this day I dont know why i was positive about something that wasn't true (apparently) but i was.

Don't throw the 'L' word around so easily.

Dude he blatantly LIED about the shot, he realized he called the two ball and covers it up with a LIE

 

[Colormegone2002]

The biggest problem in pro pool is the attitudes and actions of certain players. Guys who go out of their way to taunt, shark and cry their way into a win. Their negativity fuels them.

It's bad for pool overall. The racking wars and squabbling over rules are turning off even diehard pool fans. It's killing the growth of the game too. Who wants to bring a child or non playing friend to watch two adults ***** about racks and rolls?

Without a central governing body that can police misbehavior, I think we've lost the war.

Great post. Green one for you and I certainly agree

 

[Tooler]

Oh yeah right. After how Jayson sprinted from his chair pointing like a little tattle tale there was zero chance Earl was getting to shoot again.

Everyone has their own perspective and biases, but I'm still surprised how many ppl think Jayson did the honorable thing here. Earl made the obvious shot he was intending while Jayson pounced on a technicality that he knew was occurring yet did not inform his opponent of.

I agree. Jayson has had issues with Earl in the past, and this was a way to stick it to him, plain and simple. Jayson is a hot head... just like Earl,just like Mike.

The only reason he forfeited, was because he knew he was never getting back to the table, so why prolong it. That, and the fact that he thought he had a good chance of getting it reversed, because of the previous wrong ball that Earl was called on. "You did it before, You did it before"... What he should of done was stamp his feet. He's a good actor.

If this would of happened at 140-140, he would of shut his pie hole, and kept playing.

How soon we forget.... remember the Mosconi Cup statement he made a couple years ago...?

 

[Celtic]

im sure if jason were playing a darren or mika he wouldnt have said anything.

And that would be wrong.

In effect what you are saying is the rule should have been enforced against Earl because he is Earl. If Darren or Mika did the same thing Jason might not have said anything and that is OK? No, it is not. Either you enforce it 100% of the time or 0% of the time. You do not change enforcement of rules depending on who committed them.

As you say, Jason might not have called that on Darren. You might be right but that shows a failing in pool and opponents calling fouls on each other. In snooker players don't call fouls on each other, the ref does, and they do so impartially. A player is not left to make the decision on whether to call a foul or not, depending on if they are playing their BFF or a player they cannot stand.

 

[pt109]

From 12squared....in another thread.

Oops....said the two...aimed at the ten

 

[pt109]

From 12 squared...in another thread.

 

[AuntyDan]

"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." Wedge

This rule make no sense to me, it would enable players to make two-way shots that call-pocket is specifically designed to make impossible. I find it hard to believe this rule was accurately documented and announced to the players during the player meeting without it meeting some objections from them.

Consider the scenario that Mr. Strickland saw some kind of combo/carom that would bank the 2 into the same corner he is shooting the 10 at. (Whether such a shot was actually there is immaterial, if he believed it was there he would still act the same way.) Under this rule he can call the 2 in the corner, shoot the 10 and if he misses the 10 but gets the 2 instead he continues shooting. Conversely if he makes the 10 but not the 2 he can cite his "obvious intention" to shoot the 10 and again continues shooting. If this was truly the rule of this tournament then yes, his shot on the 10 whilst calling the 2 was legal, but it makes a mockery of Straight Pool.

Putting that rule aside and assuming the mostly sane WPA standardized world rules, if the referee heard nothing or had not clearly heard "2" he was correct to rule the 10 ball was the obvious shot. If he had heard "2" but was not sure which pocket was intended he should have interrupted Mr. Strickland before being down on the shot if possible. This is an issue when the shooter has a fast pre-shot routine and leaves no opportunity to interrupt them to clarify the call without being in danger of sharking them. But in that case the WPA rule gives the referee the right to decide whether they felt they understood the shooter's call or not. If not the referee could have ruled it loss of turn on that basis regardless of the 10 being the obvious shot.

However I think it is clear that either the referee did not hear the call at all, or did not hear what he exactly was being called and maybe did not even see the shot. IMHO this abrogates his direct role in judging the call. Therefore Mr. Shaw claim that he heard the 2 called is a simple case of the shooter's word against the opponent's. I have always though the generally accepted rule is the call always goes to the shooter in a direct dispute with the opponent. This is not in the WPA rules, as they assume a competent referee is always present, but I believe is generally accepted in non-refereed games.

So only in the scenario the referee hears the incorrect call, or the referee does not understand the call that the shooter had the chance to state clearly, or the shooter admits to making the wrong call, or the video footage available at that moment to the referee confirms the wrong call, would Mr. Strickland have lost his turn. In a professional, refereed match it is entirely the shooter's prerogative to assume the referee is competent and the shooter has no requirement to admit fault, much as that may gall both the opponent and the spectators. Doing this is just as much a "nitty" observance of the rules as forcing loss of turn when making an obvious shot you called incorrectly.

As to Mr. Shaw's behavior after he disputed the shot that was clearly unprofessional, but so was Mr Strickland's reaction to his initial dispute. Just slamming his cue on the ground like that could have been punished by the referee as Unsportsmanlike Conduct under 6.17, as could Mr. Shaw's threats of physical violence.

Both men are exceptionally talented players and I believe you have to have a laser-like focus on winning at all costs to be able to exploit talent like that to it's fullest. It is shame the tournament conditions mixed with their temperaments did not allow them play their best games and act professionally at the same time. It's also a shame that refereeing is a task that requires skill and dedication to do well but which garners almost no thanks or appreciation. In any dispute the referee is guaranteed that 50% of the people involved will always think they are wrong.

BTW As no one seems to have bothered to mention it, I though his shot on the 10 was exceptional, especially given the high likelihood of selling out the entire match if he missed.

BTW2 Also note if this ever happens to you in a game of Straight Pool and you get the shooter to admit it, make sure to spot the incorrectly pocketed ball and don't let the shooter get the point for it!

 

[Neil]

This rule make no sense to me, it would enable players to make two-way shots that call-pocket is specifically designed to make impossible. I find it hard to believe this rule was accurately documented and announced to the players during the player meeting without it meeting some objections from them.

Consider the scenario that Mr. Strickland saw some kind of combo/carom that would bank the 2 into the same corner he is shooting the 10 at. (Whether such a shot was actually there is immaterial, if he believed it was there he would still act the same way.) Under this rule he can call the 2 in the corner, shoot the 10 and if he misses the 10 but gets the 2 instead he continues shooting. Conversely if he makes the 10 but not the 2 he can cite his "obvious intention" to shoot the 10 and again continues shooting. If this was truly the rule of this tournament then yes, his shot on the 10 whilst calling the 2 was legal, but it makes a mockery of Straight Pool.

Putting that rule aside and assuming the mostly sane WPA standardized world rules, if the referee heard nothing or had not clearly heard "2" he was correct to rule the 10 ball was the obvious shot. If he had heard "2" but was not sure which pocket was intended he should have interrupted Mr. Strickland before being down on the shot if possible. This is an issue when the shooter has a fast pre-shot routine and leaves no opportunity to interrupt them to clarify the call without being in danger of sharking them. But in that case the WPA rule gives the referee the right to decide whether they felt they understood the shooter's call or not. If not the referee could have ruled it loss of turn on that basis regardless of the 10 being the obvious shot.

However I think it is clear that either the referee did not hear the call at all, or did not hear what he exactly was being called and maybe did not even see the shot. IMHO this abrogates his direct role in judging the call. Therefore Mr. Shaw claim that he heard the 2 called is a simple case of the shooter's word against the opponent's. I have always though the generally accepted rule is the call always goes to the shooter in a direct dispute with the opponent. This is not in the WPA rules, as they assume a competent referee is always present, but I believe is generally accepted in non-refereed games.

So only in the scenario the referee hears the incorrect call, or the referee does not understand the call that the shooter had the chance to state clearly, or the shooter admits to making the wrong call, or the video footage available at that moment to the referee confirms the wrong call, would Mr. Strickland have lost his turn. In a professional, refereed match it is entirely the shooter's prerogative to assume the referee is competent and the shooter has no requirement to admit fault, much as that may gall both the opponent and the spectators. Doing this is just as much a "nitty" observance of the rules as forcing loss of turn when making an obvious shot you called incorrectly.

As to Mr. Shaw's behavior after he disputed the shot that was clearly unprofessional, but so was Mr Strickland's reaction to his initial dispute. Just slamming his cue on the ground like that could have been punished by the referee as Unsportsmanlike Conduct under 6.17, as could Mr. Shaw's threats of physical violence.

Both men are exceptionally talented players and I believe you have to have a laser-like focus on winning at all costs to be able to exploit talent like that to it's fullest. It is shame the tournament conditions mixed with their temperaments did not allow them play their best games and act professionally at the same time. It's also a shame that refereeing is a task that requires skill and dedication to do well but which garners almost no thanks or appreciation. In any dispute the referee is guaranteed that 50% of the people involved will always think they are wrong.

BTW As no one seems to have bothered to mention it, I though his shot on the 10 was exceptional, especially given the high likelihood of selling out the entire match if he missed.

BTW2 Also note if this ever happens to you in a game of Straight Pool and you get the shooter to admit it, make sure to spot the incorrectly pocketed ball and don't let the shooter get the point for it!

It makes no sense to you because you are omitting a key word. The word "obvious". In your examples, those are not obvious shots. Earl's shot on the ten was obvious. In fact, it was so obvious, that even those against Earl admit they know he was shooting at the ten ball.

 

[AuntyDan]

No, I'm not omitting "obvious", I included when quoting the rule you listed. I also agree the 10 ball was the obvious shot.

What I am saying though is that I believe this rule is unacceptable for call-pocket games like Straight Pool. It allows a two-way shot to be deliberately played by shooting the obvious ball (in this case the 10) whilst calling a second ball (in this case the 2) that is non-obvious. Then if either the 2 or the 10 ball is made it is a legal shot. If Mr. Strickland had somehow made the 2 and not the 10 then he would have correctly called the ball and pocket and would get to continue shooting despite it being a non-obvious shot.

Have I missed something about this rule that does not allow the player to shoot a two-way shot as I described?

 

[Rico]

Common denominator inmost of these blatant bad sportsmanship issues is Earl.The great white of sharking.Earl should go on the road by himself and act like that gambling.Aint enough tush hogs.

 

[Neil]

No, I'm not omitting "obvious", I included when quoting the rule you listed. I also agree the 10 ball was the obvious shot.

What I am saying though is that I believe this rule is unacceptable for call-pocket games like Straight Pool. It allows a two-way shot to be deliberately played by shooting the obvious ball (in this case the 10) whilst calling a second ball (in this case the 2) that is non-obvious. Then if either the 2 or the 10 ball is made it is a legal shot. If Mr. Strickland had somehow made the 2 and not the 10 then he would have correctly called the ball and pocket and would get to continue shooting despite it being a non-obvious shot.

Have I missed something about this rule that does not allow the player to shoot a two-way shot as I described?

Yes, you have. If it is a two way shot, then the shot is not an obvious shot. Obvious means that there isn't anything else he would be shooting at. In this case, there is no way that the two was going to go to the corner that he pointed to. So, in this case, there was no two way shot. Any other example would have to constitute a viable option for the two way, which by default means the shot is not obvious.

 

[AuntyDan]

Yes, you have. If it is a two way shot, then the shot is not an obvious shot. Obvious means that there isn't anything else he would be shooting at. In this case, there is no way that the two was going to go to the corner that he pointed to. So, in this case, there was no two way shot. Any other example would have to constitute a viable option for the two way, which by default means the shot is not obvious.

If he called the 2 he was legally declaring he was shooting a non-obvious shot under the normal rules of called-pocket Pool games. He did not have to call how or why he was shooting it, just ball and pocket, which he apparently did. There is no way even a competent referee observing a game from a distance can judge that there was not some kind of combo/carom on the 2 that a player like Mr. Strickland could see from close up. And even if the video shows the 2 was impossible remember it is the shooter's intention that matters, not what they were actually capable of achieving. His call of the 2 declares his intention, that's why the call is important.

He could have called nothing at all and the 10 ball would have been a perfectly legal "obvious" shot under normal rules, but not if he calls another ball that has a chance, however slim, of being made.

I agree that if the 2 ball was off the table altogether, or perhaps at the completely opposite end of the table you call it was "obvious" he did not intend to shoot the 2. However the 2 was not only still on the table but it was very close to the cue ball and it did move during this shot. The cue ball ran directly into the cluster it was in after hitting the 10 and he hit that cluster hard enough to bank it across the table had he hit it at a slightly different angle.

What if the 2 had gone in but he'd missed the 10? Would he have lost the table under this rule or continued shooting?

I do not disagree that the rule you quote states an "obvious" shot on the incorrectly called ball can mean the shot is called good. My contention is this rule is simply bad. It causes more issues than it solves by creating situations where smart players can gain advantage that they should not be able to get in a called-shot game. This was one such situation. It might have been an honest mistake or it might have been a cynical attempt to play a two-way shot. This rule allows the player to benefit either way. It caused a conflict that should not be possible in call-shot refereed match.

Under the UPA rules it is the player's obligation to make the call clear to the referee. This avoids any confusion as long as the referee is paying attention. If he calls the 2 and makes the 10 instead it's loss of turn. Everyone who has ever played a call-shot game understands this rule and I don't personally believe there is any requirement for change if the players can be bothered to follow the rules properly and the referees correctly enforce them.

 

[wayne]

If he called the 2 he was legally declaring he was shooting a non-obvious shot under the normal rules of called-pocket Pool games. He did not have to call how or why he was shooting it, just ball and pocket, which he apparently did. There is no way even a competent referee observing a game from a distance can judge that there was not some kind of combo/carom on the 2 that a player like Mr. Strickland could see from close up. And even if the video shows the 2 was impossible remember it is the shooter's intention that matters, not what they were actually capable of achieving. His call of the 2 declares his intention, that's why the call is important.

He could have called nothing at all and the 10 ball would have been a perfectly legal "obvious" shot under normal rules, but not if he calls another ball that has a chance, however slim, of being made.

I agree that if the 2 ball was off the table altogether, or perhaps at the completely opposite end of the table you call it was "obvious" he did not intend to shoot the 2. However the 2 was not only still on the table but it was very close to the cue ball and it did move during this shot. The cue ball ran directly into the cluster it was in after hitting the 10 and he hit that cluster hard enough to bank it across the table had he hit it at a slightly different angle.

What if the 2 had gone in but he'd missed the 10? Would he have lost the table under this rule or continued shooting?

I do not disagree that the rule you quote states an "obvious" shot on the incorrectly called ball can mean the shot is called good. My contention is this rule is simply bad. It causes more issues than it solves by creating situations where smart players can gain advantage that they should not be able to get in a called-shot game. This was one such situation. It might have been an honest mistake or it might have been a cynical attempt to play a two-way shot. This rule allows the player to benefit either way. It caused a conflict that should not be possible in call-shot refereed match.

Under the UPA rules it is the player's obligation to make the call clear to the referee. This avoids any confusion as long as the referee is paying attention. If he calls the 2 and makes the 10 instead it's loss of turn. Everyone who has ever played a call-shot game understands this rule and I don't personally believe there is any requirement for change if the players can be bothered to follow the rules properly and the referees correctly enforce them.

The odds of the 2 going in the called pocket and Earl pretending that is what he was trying to do = 1 in 747,000,000.